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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 04/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, & 16 remain pending. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 14, & 16 have been amended. Claims 2, 7, 15, &17-20 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 lines 3-9, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Objection to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) of Figures 5 & 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 line 10 to page 9 line 6, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Objections to the Claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) of claims 3-6, 8-13, & 16 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 line 7 to page 10 line 15, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 9 lines 12-14):
“The Examiner further contends that it is unclear how the “first candidate interval” and “second candidate interval” are different, identified, or defined.”
& (page 10 lines 4-6):
“Regarding it being unclear how the “first candidate interval” and “second candidate interval are different, identified, or defined, the rejection is traversed as follows. Applicant argues that there is no requirement for explicitly reciting how a step is performed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2171: “(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.”
Analysis:
If it is unclear what a limitation requires (i.e. how “different, identified, or defined”), or how it is performed then the claim does not “particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, limitations which recite ‘identifying an interval’ without significantly more are indefinite and must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 line 16 to page 12 line 20, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 12 lines 13-15):
“Applicant asserts that limitations (a)-(f) integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A Prong Two of the SME test by improving the technical field of hydraulic fracturing. Independent claims 1 and 14 improve the technical field of hydraulic fracturing by more clearly identifying a productive interval of a well where hydraulic fractures should be induced in order to produce more hydrocarbons or produce hydrocarbons more efficiently.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation “determining a completion plan” is either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation “wherein the completion plan comprises information on where to induce hydraulic fractures within a reservoir associated with the well based on a location of the productive interval” is either directed towards the field of use of CPC symbols G01V1/40 or G01V1/50, or is not significantly more than stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s).
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation “completing, using a hydraulic fracturing system, the well based on the completion plan” is either directed towards the field of use of hydraulic fracturing or is not significantly more than stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s).
–(f) are analogous to (a)-(b).
Note: claims directed towards the well itself, such as “wherein a formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval comprises micropores” are not directed to the invention itself but are directed towards the natural phenomenon or natural product. Such subject matter is not patentable (see MPEP 2106.04(b)(I): “The law of nature and natural phenomenon exceptions reflect the Supreme Court's view that the basic tools of scientific and technological work are not patentable, because the "manifestations of laws of nature" are "part of the storehouse of knowledge," "free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.”" Or MPEP 2106.04(b)(II): “When a law of nature or natural phenomenon is claimed as a physical product, the courts have often referred to the exception as a "product of nature"”)
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 12 line 21 to page 14 line 7, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 13 lines 17-19):
“Arro fails to disclose or suggest identifying a first candidate interval within the interval where the formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval includes micropores as limitation (g) requires. Arro is silent regarding identification of any kind of interval, let alone identifying an interval within another interval as claimed.”
& (page 14 lines 4-7):
“Arro is silent regarding moduli of any kind, let alone mechanical parameter data that includes mechanical values of at least one of a Young’s modulus, a bulk modulus, or a shear modulus as limitation (h) requires. Arro fails to disclose or suggest limitation (i) as the Examiner admits.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Arro in Fig. 3 shows data which their system makes use of and in one of the boxes is “porosity”. Therefore, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation Arro identifies intervals with micropores/(porosity data). At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, If a system collects data of one type and data of another type then it is collecting data from intervals and the overlap would be an interval within another interval.
The reference of US 11078787 B2 (Moronkeji) was relied upon for teachings regarding a second interval involving moduli.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 14 line 8 to line 20, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 14 lines 9-11):
“Moronkeji fails to disclose or suggest identifying a first candidate interval within the interval where the formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval includes micropores as limitation (g) requires.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Arro was relied upon for teaching micropores. Moronkeji was relied upon for teaching moduli. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any method which uses both micropore data and moduli data teaches the identification of intervals as well as intervals within intervals (i.e. where both types of data are collected). Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches both types of data and so the interval within an interval.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 15 lines 1-10, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 15 lines 1-10):
“A skilled person, aware of Arro and Moronkeji and applying common sense, would have no motivation to identify an interval within another interval, … The Examiner is thus engaging in impermissible hindsight by contending that Arro and Moronkeji would have motivated a skilled person to identify an interval within another interval based on the recited criteria of micropores or mechanical data as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Arro was relied upon for teaching micropores, Moronkeji was relied upon for teaching moduli. The motivation for combining is that data regarding optimization of drilling operations according to rock data can be used to optimize drilling parameters. This motivation (taught by Moronkeji) was provided in the office action filed 01/22/2026 in page 44). The teachings and the motivation to combine can be found in the prior art of record with filing or publication dates prior to the filing of the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the prior art of record to achieve the teachings of the instant application prior to the filing of the instant application. Therefore, this is not hindsight reasoning (see MPEP 2145(X)(A): “Applicants may argue that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning. However, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.").
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 15 line 11 to page 17 line 3, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 15 lines 15-19):
“Relative to amended claim 1, Zhang fails to supply that which Arro and Moronkeji lack. Zhang fails to disclose or suggest at least limitations (g) – (i) provided above.”
& (page 16 lines 13-19):
“A skilled person, aware of Arro, Moronkeji, and Zhang and applying common sense, would have led to no motivation to identify an interval within another interval, as claimed, … The Examiner is thus engaging in impermissible hindsight by contending that Arro, Moronkeji, and Zhang would have motivated a skilled person to identify an interval within another interval based on the recited criteria of micropores or mechanical parameter data as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches intervals combining micro-porosity and moduli and provide a motivation to combine the two (as explained above). Zhang is relied upon for teaching obtaining rock cores along the interval of the well and provides motivation to combine (Zhang para 070: “numerical pseudocores can be gridded into models suitable for fluid flow simulations. Capillary pressure and relative permeability curves are provided by conceptual models, special core analysis, or established techniques of fine-scale pore-network modeling”). All the required teachings and motivation to combine is found in prior art which was available prior to the filing of the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the teachings and motivations before the filing of the instant application to arrive at the teachings of the instant application. This is not hindsight reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 17 line 4 to page 18 line 17, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 17 lines 13-16):
“Pervukhina fails to disclose or suggest at least limitations (g)-(i) provided above. Pervukhina fails to disclose or suggest identifying a first candidate interval within the interval where the formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval includes micropores as limitation (g) requires.”
& (page 18 lines 8-14):
“A skilled person, aware of Arro, Moronkeji, and Pervukhina and applying common sense, would have not motivation to identify and interval … The Examiner is thus engaging in impermissible hindsight by contending that Arro, Moronkeji, and Pervukhina would have motivated a person to identify an interval within another interval based on the recited criteria of micropores or mechanical parameter data as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Arro in view of Moronkeji was relied upon for teaching identify interval within another interval based on mirocoporosity data and moduli data (as explained above). Pervukhina was relied upon for teaching ‘using differential effective medium (DEM) model. The motivation to combine was Arro in view of Moronkeji with Pervukina was found in Pervukhina para 0073: “overpressure of shale affects both porosity and anisotropy … taken into account via porosity variations and might require calibration” (DEM model including porosity data). At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an interval is a region from which data of a type is collected and therefore collecting at least two types of data in a region necessarily implies an interval within an interval. The teachings and the motivation to combine can be found in the prior art of record with filing or publication dates prior to the filing of the instant application. This is not hindsight reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 18 line 18 to page 20 line 8, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 19 lines 4-5):
“Relative to amended independent claim 1, Wheelock fails to supply that which Arro and Moronkeji lack. Wheelock fails to disclose or suggest at least limitations (g)-(i) provided above.”
& (page 20 lines 2-5):
“The Examiner is thus engaging in impermissible hindsight by contending that Arro, Moronkeji, and Wheelock would have motivated a skilled person to identify an interval within another interval based on the recited criteria of micropores or mechanical parameter data as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Arro in view of Moronkeji was relied upon for teaching limitations (g)-(i). The motivation to combine Arro in view of Moronkeji with Wheelock was found in Wheelock column 2 lines 8-10: “A key benefit of this would be a significantly improved estimation of the resistivity of fluids, particularly hydrocarbons in the formation.”. The teachings and the motivation to combine can be found in the prior art of record with filing or publication dates prior to the filing of the instant application. This is not hindsight reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 20 line 9 to page 22 line 9, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 20 lines 15-16):
“Relative to independent claim 1, Wessling fails to supply that which Arro and Moronkeji lack. Wessling fails to disclose or suggest at least limitations (g) and (i).”
& (page 21 lines 4-5):
“Again, Wessling is silent regarding identification of any kind of interval, let alone identifying an interval within another interval as claimed.”
& (page 21 lines 12-15):
“The Examiner is thus engaging in impermissible hindsight by contending that Arro, Moronkeji, and Wessling would have motivated a skilled person to identify an interval within another interval based on the recited criteria of micropores or mechanical parameter data as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Arro in view of Moronkeji was relied upon for teaching (g) through (i) including identification of intervals. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, if two types of data are taken in a region then intervals are identified and an interval is within another at least where the two types of data overlap. Wessling is relied upon for teaching the Archie equation and provides a reason to combine Arro in view of Moronkeji with Wessling. The teachings and the motivation to combine can be found in the prior art of record with filing or publication dates prior to the filing of the instant application. This is not hindsight reasoning.
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 1-6, & 8-20 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1 & 14 in line 5 and line 12 & line 6 and line 14 (respectively) recites the limitation, "a first candidate interval", and "a second candidate interval". It is not clear how these are different from each other or from “an interval of a well”. It is not clear how these intervals are identified or defined.
Note: use of “comprises” is non limiting (“consists of” is considered to be limiting). Claims which state ‘interval comprises’ do not define what the interval is or how it is determined, only that it necessarily has the element(s) which follow “comprises”.
Claims 3-6, 8-13, & 16 are rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A)
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“identifying a first candidate interval within the interval using the well data, wherein a formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval comprises micropores;”
“determining mechanical parameter data along the first candidate interval based on the acoustic data;”
“wherein the mechanical parameter data comprises mechanical values of at least one of a Young’s modulus, a bulk modulus, or a shear modulus.”
“identifying a second candidate interval within the first candidate interval based on the mechanical parameter data and the porosity data;”
“determining water saturation data along the second candidate interval based on the well data;”
“identifying the productive interval within the second candidate interval based on the water saturation data and a water saturation threshold;”
“determining a completion plan for the well based on the productive interval.”
“wherein the completion plan comprises information on where to induce hydraulic fractures within a reservoir associated with the well based on a location of the productive interval.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(c): “If the claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, then the claim recites a "product of nature" exception, and requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions … The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. … It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols,”
Analysis:
The limitation of “wherein a formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval comprises micropores” is a characteristic of the geology of the formation and is therefore a "product of nature".
Limitations which under the broadest reasonable interpretation are not significantly more than ‘identifying using data’, ‘determining data based on data’, & ‘determining a plan’ are concepts performed in the human mind and are therefore within the abstract idea category of mental processes.
The limitations/elements regarding ‘[determining based on data] wherein the mechanical parameter data comprises Young’s modulus, a bulk modulus, or a shear modulus.’ amounts to no more than the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). ‘determining based on data’ is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation a process which can be done in the human mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites abstract ideas or laws of nature.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The additional limitations are:
“obtaining well data along an interval of a well, wherein the well data comprises acoustic data and porosity data;”
“completing, using a hydraulic fracturing system, the well based on the completion data”
The elements are:
“a well”, “a formation surrounding the well”, “a hydraulic fracturing system”
Note: “a completion plan” is data and at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation not an element.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: … (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer”
Analysis:
The judicial exceptions as recited in Revised Step 2A Prong One necessarily imply ‘obtaining well data comprising acoustic data and porosity data’. Therefore this limitation is not significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
The elements amount to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment corresponding to at least the CPC symbols G01V1/40 or G01V1/50.
‘Completing the well’ is not significantly more than stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s)
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations and elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements as listed in Revised Step 2A prong 2 are generic elements.
These elements are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Evidentiary Requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III): “(C) a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s):
US 10209391 B2 “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” (Arro) see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 10151737 B2 “Method For Permeability Prediction Of Shale Gas” (Li) see Fig. 1B.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“[wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises:] and identifying the first candidate interval within the interval where a value of the NMR log is below a transverse relaxation time threshold.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
This limitation is further directed towards concepts performed in the human mind and is therefore within the abstract idea category of mental processes. One of ordinary skill in the art could receive NMR log data and determine within their mind whether “the NMR log is below a transverse relaxation time threshold.”.
Conclusion:
The claim recites an abstract idea of the abstract idea grouping mental processes.
Note: The “a transverse relaxation time” is a characteristic of the geology or chemistry of the formation and is therefore a "product of nature" limitation.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“[wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises:] obtaining a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) log along the interval of the well, wherein the well data further comprises the NMR log;”
Explanation:
Analysis:
The limitation amounts to no more than extra solution activity of pre-solution activity in the form of data gathering. Further, the limitation is not significantly more than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s) in the parent claim. “obtaining data” is necessarily implied by a judicial exception(s) which acts upon data.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Note: “NMR log” is data and at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation not an element.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“[identifying] wherein the transverse relaxation time threshold is between 200 milliseconds and 300 milliseconds, inclusive.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
This limitation is further directed towards concepts performed in the human mind and is therefore within the abstract idea category of mental processes. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain NMR log data and determine within their mind whether “the transverse relaxation time threshold is between 200 milliseconds and 300 milliseconds, inclusive.”.
Conclusion:
The claim recites an abstract idea of the abstract idea grouping mental processes.
Note: The “a transverse relaxation time” is a characteristic of the geology or chemistry of the formation and is therefore a "product of nature" limitation.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements.
Note: “threshold” is a numerical value which can be determined in the mind.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“[wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises:] …wherein the well data comprises the image of each of the rock cores”
“[wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises:] … and identifying the first candidate interval within the interval where the image of each of the rock cores is of the micropores.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
The limitations/elements regarding “identifying the first candidate interval” amounts to no more than the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). ‘Identifying based on data’ is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation a process which can be done in the human mind.
Conclusion:
The claim recites an abstract idea of the abstract idea grouping mental processes.
Note: The “a transverse relaxation time” is a characteristic of the geology or chemistry of the formation and is therefore a "product of nature" limitation.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“[wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises:] obtaining rock cores along the interval of the well;”
“[wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises:] … generating, using scanning electron microscopy, an image of each of the rock cores, wherein the image of each of the rock cores is of pores;”
The additional elements are:
“rock cores”, & “an image”
Explanation:
Analysis:
The limitations/elements regarding “obtaining rock cores” amounts to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” corresponding to at least the CPC symbols of E21B 25/00: “Apparatus for obtaining or removing undisturbed cores, e.g. core barrels or core extractors”
The limitations/elements regarding “generating, using electron microscopy, an image of each of the rock cores” amounts to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” corresponding to at least the CPC symbols G06V 2201/122: “Computational image acquisition in electron microscopy“.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself”
These elements are no more than what is implied by at least CPC symbols E21B 25/00 & G06V 2201/122.
The additional elements as listed in Revised Step 2A prong 2 are not significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein identifying the second candidate interval comprises determining where each of the mechanical values among the mechanical parameter data is below a mechanical parameter threshold and a porosity value among the porosity data is above a porosity threshold, wherein each of the mechanical values and the porosity value are associated to a position within the second candidate interval.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
The limitations/elements regarding “identifying data which is above or below a threshold” amounts to no more than the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). ‘Identifying based on data’ is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation a process which can be done in the human mind.
Conclusion:
The claim recites an abstract idea of the abstract idea grouping mental processes.
Note: The “porosity” is a characteristic of the geology or chemistry of the formation and is therefore a "product of nature" limitation.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 6 recites no additional elements beyond those in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those recited in step 2A
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein identifying the second candidate interval comprises: determining, using a differential effective medium (DEM) model, a model between a mechanical parameter and porosity for a pore aspect ratio;”
“ and identifying the second candidate interval within the first candidate interval where each of the mechanical values among the mechanical parameter data is within a mechanical parameter threshold of the model and a porosity value among the porosity data is within a porosity threshold of the model, wherein each of the mechanical values and the porosity value are associated to a position within the second candidate interval.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
The limitations/elements regarding “[determining based on data] using models based on data” and “identifying” amounts to no more than the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
The claim recites an abstract idea of the abstract idea grouping mental processes or of mathematical concepts.
Note: “models” are interpreted as mathematical equations. A non-generic physical model would not be a judicial exception but there is not sufficient support for a physical model within the specifications.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 8 recites no additional elements beyond those in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those recited in step 2A
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein the pore aspect ratio is between 0.1 and 0.2, inclusive.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
This limitation is directed towards either the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts or to natural phenomenon. Ratios are mathematical values and a pore aspect ratio is a characteristic of a natural phenomenon.
Conclusion:
The claim recites an abstract idea of the abstract idea grouping mathematical concepts or of natural phenomenon.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 9 recites no additional elements beyond those in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those recited in step 2A
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the formation surrounding the well within the second candidate interval comprises euhedral texture and/or subhedral texture.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
This limitation is directed towards ‘texture of the formation surrounding the well’.
Conclusion:
The texture of the formation is a characteristic of the geology or chemistry of a natural phenomenon. Therefore claim recites a natural phenomenon.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 10 recites no additional elements beyond those in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those recited in step 2A
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“wherein the water saturation data is determined using an Archie equation.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
Equations (such as the Archie equation) are within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
This limitation is directed towards the abstract concept grouping of mathematical concepts..
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 11 recites no additional elements beyond those in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those recited in step 2A
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
“wherein the water saturation threshold is greater than 50%.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
Equations (such as a threshold greater than a numerical value) are within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
This limitation is directed towards the abstract concept grouping of mathematical concepts..
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 12 recites no additional elements beyond those in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those recited in step 2A
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 13 additionally recites:
“wherein the formation surrounding the well within the productive interval comprises carbonate.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
The comprising components of a formation are characteristics of the geology or chemistry of a natural phenomenon.
Conclusion:
Therefore claim recites a natural phenomenon.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 13 recites no additional elements beyond those in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those recited in step 2A
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 14 & 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1, 3-6, 8-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 14, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10209391 B2 (Arro) in view of US 11078787 B2 (Moronkeji).
Regarding claim 1, Arro teaches a method of identifying a productive interval along a well, the method comprising: obtaining well data along the interval of a well, wherein the well data comprises acoustic data and porosity data (Fig. 3 “acoustic” & “porosity”); identifying a first candidate interval within the interval using the well data, wherein a formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval comprises micropores (Fig. 3 “porosity”, micropores/(porosity is about micropores in the formation)); determining mechanical parameter data along the first candidate interval based on the acoustic data (Fig. 3 “acoustic”, if the system has acoustic data then it is “based, at least in part, on the acoustic data”); … and the porosity data (Fig. 3 “porosity”); determining water saturation data along the second candidate interval based on the well data (Fig. 3 “Water Volume”); identifying the productive interval within the second candidate interval based on the water saturation data and a water saturation threshold (Fig. 3 “HCIP and Productivity”, column 5 lines 64-66: “From the petrophysical analysis, an amount of hydrocarbons in place and productivity of the formation can be estimated.”); determining a completion plan for the well based, on the productive interval (column 5 line 66 to column 6 line 3: “With this information, well completion tasks can be performed such as determining where to perforate a casing lining the well in order to produce hydrocarbons while excluding the production of water.”); wherein the completion plan comprises information on where to induce hydraulic fractures within a reservoir associated with the well based on a location of the productive interval (Fig. 2-24: “hydraulic fracturing system”, & Fig. 1-9: “Volume of Interest”, productive interval/(“Volume of Interest”)); and completing, using a hydraulic fracturing system, the well based on the completion plan (Fig. 2-22:Perforation Tool”, column 2 lines 4-6: “FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view of hydrocarbon production apparatus configured to perform one or more physical actions related to the production of hydrocarbons”).
Arro does not as explicitly teach wherein the mechanical parameter data comprises mechanical values of at least one of a Young’s modulus, a bulk modulus, or a shear modulus (column 6 lines 4-6: “Example elastic constants include Young’s modulus, bulk modulus, shear modulus, and Poisson’s ratio”); identifying a second candidate interval within the first candidate interval based, at least in part, on the mechanical parameter data.
Moronkeji teaches wherein the mechanical parameter data comprises mechanical values of at least one of a Young’s modulus, a bulk modulus, or a shear modulus (column 6 lines 4-6: “Example elastic constants include Young’s modulus, bulk modulus, shear modulus, and Poisson’s ratio”); identifying a second candidate interval within the first candidate interval based on the mechanical parameter data (Note as per 112(b) above: “mechanical parameter data” is being interpreted as either Young’s modulus or bulk modulus or shear modulus, column 2 lines 4-7: “the property of the subterranean rock formation is Young's modulus, Bulk modulus, Shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, and combinations thereof.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Arro with the teachings of Moronkeji. One would have added to the “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” of Arro the “Estimating Properties Of A Subterranean Formation” of Moronkeji. The motivation would have been that current properties of the formation would allow for optimization of drilling parameters (see Moronkeji column 10 lines 4-12: “Moreover, advantages while drilling downhole are realized by setting or adjusting an operational parameter based on knowledge of downhole rock elastic properties. One example advantage is that armed with elastic constant information about the rock or subterranean formation, the rotational velocity of the coring bit 38 is set or adjusted in accordance with the rock or formation being drilled, and which can reduce wear of the bit 38 and increase its operational life and effectiveness.”).
Regarding claim 3, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Arro further teaches wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises: obtaining a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) log along the interval of the well, wherein the well data further comprises the NMR log (Fig. 3 “NMR” & “simultaneous inversion of … logs”); and identifying the first candidate interval within the interval where a value of the NMR log is below a transverse relaxation time threshold (column 5 line 66 to column 6 line 3: “With this information, well completion tasks can be performed such as determining where to perforate a casing lining the well in order to produce hydrocarbons while excluding the production of water.”).
Regarding claim 4, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 3,
Arro further teaches wherein the transverse relaxation time threshold is between 200 milliseconds and 300 milliseconds, inclusive (column 4 lines 4-19: “The NMR measurements may yield a longitudinal relaxation time constant T.sub.1 and a transverse relaxation time constant T.sub.2 … There is not one single value of T.sub.2 for formation rock but a wide distribution of values lying anywhere between fractions of a millisecond (ms) and several seconds for example.”).
Regarding claim 6, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Arro further teaches and a porosity value among the porosity data is above a porosity threshold (Fig. 3 “Porosity”, system uses a porosity value to determine productivity and payoff of drilling, as such there must be a threshold below which it is not considered productive to drill), wherein each of the mechanical values and the porosity value are associated to a position within the second candidate interval (Fig. 1-9 “volume of interest”, position/(“volume of interest”)).
Moronkeji further teaches wherein identifying the second candidate interval comprises determining where each of the mechanical values among the mechanical parameter data is below a mechanical parameter threshold (Note as per 112(b) above: “mechanical parameter data” is being interpreted as either Young’s modulus or bulk modulus or shear modulus, column 2 lines 4-7: “the property of the subterranean rock formation is Young's modulus, Bulk modulus, Shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, and combinations thereof.”)
Regarding claim 14, Arro teaches a system to identify a productive interval along a well, the system comprising: a computer system (Fig. 1-12 “Computer Processing System”) configured to: receive well data along an interval of the well, wherein the well data comprises acoustic data and porosity data (Fig. 3 “acoustic” & “porosity”), identify a first candidate interval within the interval using the well data, wherein a formation surrounding the well within the first candidate interval comprises micropores (Fig. 3 “porosity”, micropores/(porosity is about micropores in the formation)), determine mechanical parameter data along the first candidate interval based, at least in part, on the acoustic data (Fig. 3 “acoustic”, if the system has acoustic data then it is “based, at least in part, on the acoustic data”), … and the porosity data (Fig. 3 “porosity”), determine water saturation data along the second candidate interval based on the well data (Fig. 3 “Water Volume”), and identify the productive interval within the second candidate interval based, at least in part, on the water saturation data and a water saturation threshold (Fig. 3 “HCIP and Productivity”, column 5 lines 64-66: “From the petrophysical analysis, an amount of hydrocarbons in place and productivity of the formation can be estimated.”); a production management system configured to determine a completion plan for the well based on the productive interval (column 5 line 66 to column 6 line 3: “With this information, well completion tasks can be performed such as determining where to perforate a casing lining the well in order to produce hydrocarbons while excluding the production of water.”), wherein the completion plan comprises information on where to induce hydraulic fractures within a reservoir associated with the well based on a location of the productive interval (Fig. 2-24: “hydraulic fracturing system”, & Fig. 1-9: “Volume of Interest”, productive interval/(“Volume of Interest”)); and completing, using a hydraulic fracturing system, the well based on the completion plan (Fig. 2-22:Perforation Tool”, column 2 lines 4-6: “FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view of hydrocarbon production apparatus configured to perform one or more physical actions related to the production of hydrocarbons”).
Arro does not as explicitly teach wherein the mechanical parameter data comprises mechanical values of at least one of a Young’s modulus, a bulk modulus, or a shear modulus identify a second candidate interval within the first candidate interval based on the mechanical parameter data.
Moronkeji teaches wherein the mechanical parameter data comprises mechanical values of at least one of a Young’s modulus, a bulk modulus, or a shear modulus (column 6 lines 4-6: “Example elastic constants include Young’s modulus, bulk modulus, shear modulus, and Poisson’s ratio”), identify a second candidate interval within the first candidate interval based on the mechanical parameter data (Note as per 112(b) above: “mechanical parameter data” is being interpreted as either Young’s modulus or bulk modulus or shear modulus, column 2 lines 4-7: “the property of the subterranean rock formation is Young's modulus, Bulk modulus, Shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, and combinations thereof.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Arro with the teachings of Moronkeji. One would have added to the “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” of Arro the “Estimating Properties Of A Subterranean Formation” of Moronkeji. The motivation would have been that current properties of the formation would allow for optimization of drilling parameters (see Moronkeji column 10 lines 4-12: “Moreover, advantages while drilling downhole are realized by setting or adjusting an operational parameter based on knowledge of downhole rock elastic properties. One example advantage is that armed with elastic constant information about the rock or subterranean formation, the rotational velocity of the coring bit 38 is set or adjusted in accordance with the rock or formation being drilled, and which can reduce wear of the bit 38 and increase its operational life and effectiveness.”).
Regarding claim 16, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the system of claim 14,
Arro further teaches further comprising a well logging system configured to obtain the well data (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 “NMR” & “simultaneous inversion of … logs”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10209391 B2 (Arro) in view of US 11078787 B2 (Moronkeji) in view of WO 2009126881 A2 (Zhang).
Regarding claim 5, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Arro further teaches wherein the well data comprises the image of each of the rock cores (Fig. 1-10: “NMR tool”, NMR produces images of the rock); and identifying the first candidate interval within the interval where the image of each of the rock cores is of the micropores (Fig. 3 “porosity”, micropores/(porosity is about micropores in the formation)).
Moronkeji further teaches wherein identifying the first candidate interval comprises: obtaining rock cores along the interval of the well (Abstract: “Extracting a core sample from within a wellbore is optimized based on information extracted from acoustic signals that are generated downhole. The acoustic signals provide an indication of the formation being cored”);
Neither Arro nor Moronkeji teach generating, using scanning electron microscopy, an image of each of the rock cores, wherein the image of each of the rock cores is of pores.
Zhang teaches generating, using scanning electron microscopy, an image of each of the rock cores, wherein the image of each of the rock cores is of pores (para 0069: “Digital rocks or core samples can be generated from 2-dimensional thin sections, scanning-electron-microscope images … These are discrete variable training images with the attribute being the rock (white) or pore (black) at each pixel of the image”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Arro in view of Moronkeji with the teachings of Zhang. One would have added to the “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” with “the “Estimating Properties Of A Subterranean Formation” of Arro in view of Moronkeji the “Method to Generate Numerical Pseudocores using Borehole Images, Digital Rock Samples and Multi-Point Statistics” which uses a scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of Zhang. The motivation would have been that the imaging with a electron microscope would enable the creation of accurate models for fluid-flow simulations (see Zhang para 070: “Numerical pseudocores can be gridded into models suitable for fluid-flow simulations. Capillary pressure and relative permeability curves are provided by conceptual models, special core analysis, or established techniques of fine-scale pore-network modeling”)
Claim(s) 8-9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10209391 B2 (Arro) in view of US 11078787 B2 (Moronkeji) in view of US 20240004097 A1 (Pervukhina).
Regarding claim 8, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Arro further teaches … and identifying the second candidate interval within the first candidate interval where each of the mechanical values among the mechanical parameter data is within a mechanical parameter threshold of the model and a porosity value among the porosity data is within a porosity threshold of the model (Fig. 3 “Porosity”), wherein each of the mechanical values and the porosity value are associated to a position within the second candidate interval (Fig. 1 – 9 “volume of interest”, position/(“volume of interest”)).
Neither Arro nor Moronkeji teach wherein identifying the second candidate interval comprises: determining, using a differential effective medium (DEM) model, a model between a mechanical parameter and porosity for a pore aspect ratio.
Pervukhina teaches wherein identifying the second candidate interval comprises: determining, using a differential effective medium (DEM) model (para 0073: “Processor 112 may use rock physics methods including differential effective medium (DEM) and self-consistent approximation (SCA) methods to model the effect of the determined shale parameters in the subsurface formation,”), a model between a mechanical parameter and porosity for a pore aspect ratio (para 0083: “The silt fraction, aspect ratio and the elastic properties of silt inclusions may be used as input for these methods.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Arro in view of Moronkeji with the teachings of Pervukhina. One would have added to the “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” with “the “Estimating Properties Of A Subterranean Formation” of Arro in view of Moronkeji the “Methods and Systems for Determining Parameters of Anistropy” of Pervukhina. The motivation would have been that the anisotropy of the subterranean formation would require calibration to optimize drilling parameters (see Pervukhina para 0073: “Further relationships may include that overpressure of shale affects both porosity and anisotropy, and that the effect of overpressure on anisotropy may be taken into account via porosity variations and might require calibration.”)
Regarding claim 9, Arro in view of Moronkeji in view of Pervukhina teaches the method of claim 8,
Pervukhina further teaches wherein the pore aspect ratio is between 0.1 and 0.2, inclusive (para 0084: “According to some embodiments, processor 112 may calculate the effect of porosity based on the assumption that the aspect ratios of pores within the shale are in the range of 0.5-0.7 … The range of plausible aspect ratios of fluid inclusions can be extended if new evidence comes to light. While the aspect ratio of pores is generally only used as a fitting parameter, the present method uses this aspect ratio to determine the effect of porosity on the elastic parameters of the shale. The elastic parameters determined at step 250 may be adjusted by processor 112 based on the determined effect.”).
The specific values of “between .1 and .2 can be achieved through routine optimization by optimizing the fit using the aspect ratio as a fitting parameter and thereby finding aspect ratios in the range of .1 to .2. As Pervukhina states it is known that the pore aspect ratio can be varied to achieve a better fit. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” & MPEP 2144.05(II)(B):: “In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.”.
Regarding claim 13, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Neither Arro nor Moronkeji teach wherein the formation surrounding the well within the productive interval comprises carbonate
Pervukhina teaches wherein the formation surrounding the well within the productive interval comprises carbonate (para 0069: “The other constituents of shale may include silt and other different minerals, including but not limited to quartz, pyrite, feldspar and carbonates. However, the definition of shale may differ in some circumstances and may be altered by altering the rock physics model data stored in rock physics model library”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Arro in view of Moronkeji with the teachings of Pervukhina. One would have added to the “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” with “the “Estimating Properties Of A Subterranean Formation” of Arro in view of Moronkeji the “Methods and Systems for Determining Parameters of Anistropy” of Pervukhina. The motivation would have been that the anisotropy of the subterranean formation would require calibration to optimize drilling parameters (see Pervukhina para 0073: “Further relationships may include that overpressure of shale affects both porosity and anisotropy, and that the effect of overpressure on anisotropy may be taken into account via porosity variations and might require calibration.”)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10209391 B2 (Arro) in view of US 11078787 B2 (Moronkeji) in view of US 11624853 B2 (Wheelock).
Regarding claim 10, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Neither Arro nor Moronkeji teaches wherein the formation surrounding the well within the second candidate interval comprises euhedral texture and/or subhedral texture
Wheelock teaches wherein the formation surrounding the well within the second candidate interval comprises euhedral texture and/or subhedral texture (Fig. 4, column 6 lines 9-11: “FIG. 4 shows SEM images of extracted pyrites from sapropel core samples with euhedral and framboidal morphologies.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Arro in view of Moronkeji with the teachings of Wheelock. One would have added to the “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” with “the “Estimating Properties Of A Subterranean Formation” of Arro in view of Moronkeji the “Methods For Performing Formation Evaluation And Related Systems” of Wheelock. The motivation would have been that taking into account the euhedral texture would improve estimations of resistivity of fluids including hydrocarbons within the formation (see Wheelock column 2 lines 8-10: “A key benefit of this would be a significantly improved estimation of the resistivity of fluids, particularly hydrocarbons in the formation.”)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10209391 B2 (Arro) in view of US 11078787 B2 (Moronkeji) in view of US 10445669 B2 (Wessling).
Regarding claim 11, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Neither Arro nor Moronkeji teach where in the water saturation data is determined using an Archie equation.
Wessling teaches where in the water saturation data is determined using an Archie equation (column 5 line 65 to column 66 line 5: “One commonly used method to convert formation resistivity into formation water/oil saturation is the Archie model: [Archie equation]”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Arro in view of Moronkeji with the teachings of Wessling. One would have added to the “Simultaneous Inversion Of NMR Multiple Echo Trains And Conventional Logs” with “the “Estimating Properties Of A Subterranean Formation” of Arro in view of Moronkeji the “System And Method For Mapping Reservoir Properties Away From The Wellbore” of Wessling. The motivation would have been that using the Archie equation or model would enable better determinations of the water saturation of the formation (see Wessling column 5 line 65 to column 66 line 5: “One commonly used method to convert formation resistivity into formation water/oil saturation is the Archie model: [Archie equation]”)
Regarding claim 12, Arro in view of Moronkeji teaches the method of claim 1,
Neither Arro nor Moronkeji teach wherein the water saturation threshold is greater than 50%.
Wessling teaches wherein the water saturation threshold is greater than 50% (column 5 lines 28-35: “The interpretation is conducted by forward modeling the expected, synthetic tool response within a subsurface model, with the subsurface model describing the distribution of resistivities in the subsurface around the wellbore. The subsurface model is then iteratively adjusted until the expected, synthetic tool response coincides with the measurements of the logging-while-drilling tools.”).
The specific values of “water saturation threshold is greater than 50%” can be achieved through routine optimization by optimizing the fit of the subsurface model with the measurements. As Wessling states “subsurface model is then iteratively adjusted until the expected, synthetic tool response coincides with the measurements of the logging-while-drilling tools.”, where a saturation threshold would be part of the model for determining the expected tool response. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” & MPEP 2144.05(II)(B):: “In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8612156 B2 "Active Noise Injection Computations For Improved Predictability In Oil And Gas Reservoir Discovery And Characterization" (Gulati) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 20140318232 A1 "Relative Permeability from Borehole Resistivity Measurements" (Pairoys) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 20140132259 A1 "NMR method to Determine Grain Size Distribution in Mixed Saturation" (Song) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1A.
US 10393641 B2 "Methods Of Determining Cementation Exponent And Saturation Exponent In Porous Media From Dielectric Dispersion Data" (Donadille) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 5 & Fig. 9.
US 10324229 B2 "System And Method Of Pore Type Classification For Petrophysical Rock Typing" (Theologou) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 5012674 A "Method Of Exploration For Hydrocarbons" (Millheim) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights