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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 31 October 2023 and 20 November 2023 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the terms “comprises” should be changed to “includes”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-15) recite “A method of improving a field operation that comprises a gas injection, the method comprising: assessing a plurality of potential injection gases against a plurality of values of a plurality of parameters associated with a plurality of samples, wherein each of the plurality of potential injection gases comprises an acidic component, and wherein the plurality of parameters comprises fluid chemistry parameters and rock properties; and determining, based on assessing the plurality of potential injection gases against the plurality of values of the plurality of parameters associated with the plurality of samples, a proposed injection gas from among the plurality of potential injection gases for the field operation that comprises the gas injection to be performed using a first wellbore in fluidic communication with a first subterranean formation, a second wellbore in fluidic communication with the first subterranean formation, a third wellbore in fluidic communication with a second subterranean formation, or any combination thereof.”
Claims 1-15, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “assessing a plurality of potential injection gases against a plurality of values of a plurality of parameters associated with a plurality of samples, wherein each of the plurality of potential injection gases comprises an acidic component, and wherein the plurality of parameters comprises fluid chemistry parameters and rock properties; and determining, based on assessing the plurality of potential injection gases against the plurality of values of the plurality of parameters associated with the plurality of samples, a proposed injection gas from among the plurality of potential injection gases for the field operation that comprises the gas injection to be performed using a first wellbore in fluidic communication with a first subterranean formation, a second wellbore in fluidic communication with the first subterranean formation, a third wellbore in fluidic communication with a second subterranean formation, or any combination thereof.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “assessing a plurality of potential injection gases against a plurality of values of a plurality of parameters associated with a plurality of samples, wherein each of the plurality of potential injection gases comprises an acidic component, and wherein the plurality of parameters comprises fluid chemistry parameters and rock properties; and determining, based on assessing the plurality of potential injection gases against the plurality of values of the plurality of parameters associated with the plurality of samples, a proposed injection gas from among the plurality of potential injection gases for the field operation that comprises the gas injection to be performed using a first wellbore in fluidic communication with a first subterranean formation, a second wellbore in fluidic communication with the first subterranean formation, a third wellbore in fluidic communication with a second subterranean formation, or any combination thereof.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 16 and 17, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 18-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0217] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ayan et al (US 2015/0204170) disclose injecting an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) agent into a subterranean formation in at least one injection interval of a hydrocarbon well extending into the subterranean formation, then producing fluid from the formation from at least one production interval of the same hydrocarbon well, and not from a neighboring well. Logging data associated with at least one of the formation, the injected EOR agent and the produced fluid may then be obtained and utilized in assessing effectiveness of the EOR agent injection. Al-Nakhli et al (US 2021/0284899) disclose a method that includes: identifying a reservoir requiring liquid stimulation treatment in a lesser-permeability portion of the reservoir; identifying a greater-permeability portion of the reservoir, the greater-permeability portion of the reservoir having a greater permeability than the lesser-permeability portion; disposing a gas in the greater-permeability portion of the reservoir; injecting a liquid stimulation treatment into the reservoir; and allowing the gas in the greater-permeability portion of the reservoir to divert the liquid stimulation treatment into the lesser-permeability portion to stimulate fluid production from the lesser-permeability portion of the reservoir. Abu-Khamsin et al (US 12,006,804) disclose a method for mitigating gas override in a hydrocarbon reservoir by increasing sweep efficiency and consequently improving incremental oil recovery is provided with at least one injection well, at least one production well, and a hydrocarbon reservoir. The injection well and the production well are in fluid communication with the hydrocarbon reservoir. An injection blend produced by mixing a displacement fluid with an organic solvent is transferred into the hydrocarbon reservoir through the injection well. A resulting injection blend is extracted from the production well and the organic solvent is separated.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853