DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 7-12 are directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture); and Claims 13-15 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-18 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
13. A device, comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the at least one hardware processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one hardware processor, wherein
the programming instructions, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
importing input data of a form of data files;
calculating stress and pressure parameters along a wellbore path from the input data imported;
displaying one or more of the input data and the calculated stress and pressure parameters along a well path of a drilled well;
receiving, by a graphical user interface (GUI), a user selection of a depth at which distribution of near-wellbore stress and state around a wellbore is determined;
in response to receiving the user selection, calculating near-wellbore parameters describing the near-wellbore stress and state around the wellbore; and
displaying, by the GUI, the calculated near-wellbore parameters around the wellbore.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because computing, visualizing, and recording stress, pore pressure, and a mechanical state for an arbitrarily oriented borehole at both local (i.e., at a specific depth) and global (i.e., along part or all of a well path) scales are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 13 and analogous independent claims 1 & 7 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, & 14-18 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2-4, 8-10, & 14-16 recite the input data; Claims 5-6, 11-12, & 17-18 recite stress, pressure, and well-bored parameters. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 13 and analogous independent claims 1 & 7, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
13. A device, comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the at least one hardware processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one hardware processor, wherein
the programming instructions, when executed, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
importing input data of a form of data files;
calculating stress and pressure parameters along a wellbore path from the input data imported;
displaying one or more of the input data and the calculated stress and pressure parameters along a well path of a drilled well;
receiving, by a graphical user interface (GUI), a user selection of a depth at which distribution of near-wellbore stress and state around a wellbore is determined;
in response to receiving the user selection, calculating near-wellbore parameters describing the near-wellbore stress and state around the wellbore; and
displaying, by the GUI, the calculated near-wellbore parameters around the wellbore.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the hardware processor, GUI; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 13 and analogous independent claims 1 & 7 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recites at least one abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the hardware processor, GUI; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, & 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US20220106867).
As per claim 1, Kang discloses a computer-implemented (para. 28: system can include one or more processors and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors) method for determining near-wellbore stress and state in a drilled well, comprising:
importing input data of a form of data files (para. 49: input data regarding wellbore configuration);
calculating stress and pressure parameters along a wellbore path from the input data imported (para. 50: GUI generated and/or provided by the interface engine can display the calculated temperature and pressure profiles, fluid properties, and other stress parameters);
displaying one or more of the input data and the calculated stress and pressure parameters along a well path of the drilled well (Fig. 1C; para. 42: 3D view shows well trajectory and characteristics);
receiving, by a graphical user interface (GUI), a user selection of a depth at which to determine distribution of the near-wellbore stress and state around a wellbore (Fig. 6A; para. 70-78: input data includes perforation depth);
in response to receiving the user selection, calculating near-wellbore parameters describing the near-wellbore stress and state around the wellbore (para. 87: temperature profiles, pressure profiles, and wellbore temperature profiles generated based on input data); and
displaying, by the GUI, the calculated near-wellbore parameters around the wellbore (Fig. 8: chart plotting various calculated parameters based on input depth).
As per claim 2, Kang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the input data comprises one or more of:
measured properties of a geological formation around the drilled well (para. 55-56: input data includes formation data); and
properties of the geological formation around the drilled well that are obtained from mechanical earth models.
As per claim 3, Kang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the input data comprises one or more of:
stresses in a geological formation around the drilled well;
pore pressures in the drilled well;
elastic properties of the geological formation around the drilled well;
plastic properties of the geological formation around the drilled well;
permeability of the geological formation around the drilled well; and
porosity of the geological formation around the drilled well (para. 56-57: input stress analysis data can include, for example and without limitation, load configurations, a load type (e.g., overpull, pressure test, running in hole, tubing evacuation, etc.), mechanical properties (e.g., mechanical properties of a casing and/or tubing) associated with the wellbore (e.g., 150), initial and final conditions (e.g., initial and final temperatures, pressures, loads, casing and/or tubing characteristics, fluid characteristics, etc.) associated with the wellbore (e.g., 150) and/or stress analysis, a casing type(s), an internal and/or external pressure and/or temperature, and/or any other parameters and configuration data relevant to calculating stress conditions or characteristics associated with the wellbore).
As per claim 4, Kang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the input data comprises data values along the well path (para. 55: input data can define, for example and without limitation, a well path and/or complex well trajectory associated with the wellbore), and
the form of data files is a tabular format (Fig. 4).
Claims 7-10 & 13-16 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-4, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6, 11-12, & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US20220106867) in view of Camargo (US20210254458).
As per claim 5, Kang discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the stress and pressure parameters calculated comprises one or more of:
maximum and minimum horizontal stresses and orientations around a borehole;
borehole collapse pressure; and
borehole fracturing pressure.
Camargo, however, teaches to calculating fracture closure pressure (para. 69-71).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Camargo with Kang based on the motivation of developing or forming accurate models of stress conditions subsurface reservoirs with calibrated minimum horizontal stress magnitudes in formations adjacent wellbores in subsurface reservoirs (Camargo - para. 1).
As per claim 6, Kang discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the near-wellbore parameters calculated comprise one or more of:
stress tensor in a geological formation around the drilled well;
failure potential curve around the drilled well;
failure region around the drilled well; and
safe mud weight window.
Camargo, however, teaches to using a geomechanical model to predict the stress and “strain tectonic regime” of the stress tensors (para. 95).
Claims 11-12 & 17-18 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 6-7, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strobel (US20130304444) teaches to software tools which assist an engineer in making decisions regarding which completion to apply to a particular underground formation or portion of an underground formation.
McClure (US 20190292884 A1) teaches to systems and methods for modeling and simulating reservoir, wellbore, and hydraulic fracturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
