DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10 and 14-20 in the reply filed on 5/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/21/26.
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintero Tudares et al. (2024/0319404) in view of Shao et al. (2023/0324579).
Regarding claim 1, Quintero Tudares et al. disclose a method comprising:
obtaining rock core data (core samples; see paragraph 35) from a formation (124; paragraph 31);
obtaining, from a well logging system (100; see paragraph 31), a plurality of well logs (well logs; see paragraph 30) from a well (110; see paragraph 31) within the formation,
wherein the plurality of well logs comprises a current resistivity log (resistivity log; see paragraphs 32 and 50), and
wherein each of the plurality of well logs comprises a measured value (measurements of formation properties; see paragraph 30) at a plurality of depths (depth intervals; see paragraphs 33 and 54);
using a computer system (600; see paragraph 61):
inputting the plurality of well logs (selected log predictors from uncored wells; see paragraph 54) into a trained machine learning (ML) model (trained clustering analysis model; see paragraph 54),
wherein the ML model is trained to produce a predicted permeability log (permeability curve predicted on each well; paragraph 54) from the plurality of well logs,
producing the predicted permeability log from the trained ML model based, at least in part, on the plurality of well logs (see paragraph 54),
determining a rock type log (determining petrophysical rock types for each well; see paragraph 56) based, at least in part, on the rock core data (see paragraphs 48 and 56),
wherein the rock type log comprises a rock type at each of the plurality of depths (the core samples are obtained along the length of the well; these core samples are used to determine rock types; therefore, the rock type at a plurality of depths is determined; see paragraphs 35 and 48),
determining, using a saturation-height function model (SHF model; see paragraph 50) for each rock type (see paragraph 49), an initial saturation log (water saturation determined from MICP; see paragraph 50) based, at least in part, on the rock type log (see paragraph 49),
wherein determining the saturation-height function model for each rock type is based, at least in part, on the predicted permeability log (see paragraph 49),
... , and
identifying at least one of a water encroachment zone and a pay zone (pay zone; see paragraph 51) among the plurality of depths by, at least in part, comparing the initial state of the well and the current state of the well (two saturation-related estimates are compared: a resistivity-based water saturation estimate, which represents current water volume, and a MICP/SHF-derived water saturation, which represents original water conditions; the comparison is used to determine the pay zone; see paragraphs 50-51); and
... .
Quintero Tudares et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
...
predicting, using an Archie-type model, an initial resistivity log based, at least in part, on the initial saturation log, and
identifying at least one of a water encroachment zone and a pay zone among the plurality of depths by, at least in part, comparing the initial resistivity log and the current resistivity log; and
designing, using a completion planning system, a completion plan for the well based, at least in part, on the at least one of the water encroachment zone and the pay zone.
Shao et al. disclose using an Archie-type equation to relate resistivity and saturation to each other (see paragraph 51); and
designing, using a completion planning system (see paragraph 127), a completion plan for the well based, at least in part, on the at least one of a water encroachment zone and a pay zone (see paragraphs 120 and 127).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Quintero Tudares et al. to predict, using an Archie-type model, an initial resistivity log based, at least in part, on the initial saturation log, in order to estimate formation properties, as suggested by Shao et al. (see paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that the comparison done to identify the water encroachment zone or pay zone is between the initial resistivity log and the current resistivity log, since the disclosed Archie equation disclosed by Shao et al. maps resistivity and saturation to each other, therefore such a modification would have involved a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include designing, using a completion planning system, a completion plan for the well based, at least in part, on the at least one of the water encroachment zone and the pay zone, similarly to the invention of Shao et al., in order to take advantage of better estimation of formation properties for completing operations, as suggested by Shao et al. (see paragraph 127).
Regarding claim 2, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising completing, using a completion system, the well based, at least in part, on the completion plan (see paragraph 127 of Shao et al., and the modifications in the foregoing rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising recovering, using a recovery system (110 and 112; see paragraph 31 of Quintero Tudares et al.), hydrocarbons (see paragraph 51 of Quintero Tudares et al.) from the well based, at least in part, on the at least one of the water encroachment zone and the pay zone (see paragraph 51 of Quintero Tudares et al.).
Regarding claim 4, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of well logs comprises a porosity log (porosity logs; see paragraph 32 of Quintero Tudares et al.).
Regarding claim 5, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the trained ML model comprises a multi-resolution graph-based clustering (MRGC) model (MRGC analysis see paragraph 44 of Quintero Tudares et al.).
Regarding claim 6, this combination of references does not meet the highlighted limitations:
wherein determining the saturation-height function model for each rock type is further based, at least in part, on applying saturation-height function modeling to a plurality of rock samples of each rock type.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to duplicate the step of modeling based on a sample from a given rock type a plurality of times, because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
This modification meets the highlighted limitations.
Regarding claim 7, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the rock type log is further based on a cluster analysis method (see paragraphs 40 and 48 of Quintero Tudares et al.).
Regarding claim 8, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the initial saturation log comprises an initial water saturation log (paragraph 50 of Quintero Tudares).
Regarding claim 9, this combination of references does not meet disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein comparing the initial resistivity log and the current resistivity log is based, at least in part, on a threshold.
Shao et al. disclose using a threshold to define regions of the formation based on parameter values (see paragraph 126).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that comparing the initial resistivity log and the current resistivity log is based, at least in part, on a threshold, similarly to the invention of Shao et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 10, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of depths comprises the at least one of the water encroachment zone and the pay zone when the initial resistivity log is greater than the current resistivity log (this follows from the modification in the rejection of claim 1; since a pay zone would be ruled out by a drop in resistivity, because, under the Archie-type equation, a drop in resistivity indicates disappearance of hydrocarbons and/or appearance of water).
Regarding claim 14, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations.
Regarding claims 15-16, see the foregoing rejections of claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of references relied upon in the foregoing rejection of claim 1 further teaches the system of claim 14, further comprising the well logging system configured to obtain the plurality of well logs (see Quintero Tudares et al.; paragraphs 30-31).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of references relied upon in the foregoing rejection of claim 1 further teaches the system of claim 14, further comprising:
a rock coring system configured to obtain a plurality of rock samples (see Quintero Tudares et al.; paragraph 35) ... .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that the well logging system were configured to obtain a plurality of training well logs from a second well within the second formation; and
... the computer system were further configured to: determine an associated training permeability for each of the plurality of rock samples, and train the ML model using the plurality of training well logs and the associated training permeability for each of the plurality of rock samples, by repeating the process on another formation, because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, see the foregoing rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of references relied upon in the foregoing rejection of claim 1 further teaches the system of claim 19, further comprising an injection system configured to determine injection pressure and mercury saturation data for each of the plurality of rock samples (see Quintero Tudares et al.; paragraph 48),
wherein the computer system is further configured to determine, using the saturation-height function modeling, the saturation-height function model for each rock type using, at least in part, the injection pressure and mercury saturation data for each rock type (see Quintero Tudares et al.; paragraphs 49-50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights