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 .
Responsive to communications on 08/22/2023
Claims 1-20 Pending
Claims 1-20 Rejected
Priority
No claims to foreign or domestic priority made in application data sheet received on 08/22/2023. Application data sheet accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
Responsive to IDS received on 08/22/2023. All references considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Responsive to drawings received on 08/22/2023. Drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Responsive to the abstract received on 08/22/2023. Abstract contains less than 150 words and contains no legal or implied phraseology. Abstract is accepted by the examiner.
Responsive to the specification received on 08/22/2023. The specification is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality: Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “the reservoir that produces hydrocarbons”. The claim never previously introduced a reservoir that specifically produces hydrocarbons. The likely meant to recite “the reservoir wherein the reservoir produces hydrocarbons”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application, and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A method, comprising: which is a process.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites: : identifying a stratigraphic interval in the target well and in the reference well
The identification of a stratigraphic interval is a judgement performed by one ordinarily skilled in the art to decide a relevant interval of interest in which well log normalization is performed. See par 28 of the specifications “The stratigraphic interval of interest may be identified by a subject matter expert
trained in geology, petrophysics, geophysics, or a similar art. The stratigraphic interval
of interest may be chosen based on the presence of hydrocarbons within it.” The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “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. “Therefore the above claim recites a mental process.
projecting the target log covering the stratigraphic interval from the target well onto a pseudo target log in a pseudo target well and projecting the reference log over the stratigraphic interval from the reference well onto a pseudo reference log in a pseudo reference well
The projection of the well logs is a mathematic projection based on geometry to a pseudo well which is positioned geometrically perpendicular to a stratigraphic region of interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See figure 2B, where the examiner understands this to be a mental process where the “projection” is a textual replacement for “copying values alongside a shared axis.” This is an action which can be performed in the human mind with a pen and paper by drawing lines perpendicular to the shared axis and copying over the relevant values from the target/reference logs. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Therefore the claim recites an abstract idea.
, identifying lithologies from a first histogram of the pseudo target log and a second histogram of the pseudo reference log,
The process of identifying lithologies from a histogram is the observation of a histogram values (peaks) and the evaluation of the histogram to derive lithologies from it. For example, par 31 of the specifications states “For example, the modes (304) of the histograms may be used to fit three Gaussian functions corresponding to three different lithologies.” … par 37: “This allows for a categorization of several lithologies based on the peaks of Gaussian functions”
PNG
media_image2.png
389
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is an identification of thee different lithologies from the graph based on the peaks (modes). The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “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. “ Therefore the claim recites a mental process.
determining, using the first histogram and the second histogram a regression relationship between the pseudo target log and the pseudo reference log, applying the regression relationship to the pseudo target log to generate a normalized pseudo target log,
The above claim limitations pertain to determine a regression relationship (identifying a mathematic formula which relates the histograms together) and applying the regression relationship to the pseudo target log to generate a normalized pseudo target log (using the mathematic function). Where the terms “determining … [a] relationship” and “applying” are textual replacements for solving for mathematic equations and performing mathematic calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore, the claim limitation recites a mathematic concept and recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites acquiring, using a well logging tool, a target log in a target well and a reference log in a reference well;.
The claim limitation recites the acquisition of data (well logs) from the physical target well and reference well. This data is used in the recited judicial exceptions above. The MPEP gives an example of insignificant extra solution activity to be mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g). One example given is “i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);” As understood, this claim limitation performs a test (well logging) on wells to obtain inputs (the target and reference logs) for an equation (the abstract ideas recited above). Therefore, this claim limitation is understood to be mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g) and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and using a well log interpretation system
A “well log interpretation system” is a generic system which performs the judicial exceptions recited above. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity (Where the ordinary capacity of a generic well log interpretation system is to interpret well logs). for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) (where it is understood that the well log interpretation system is a recitation of a “generic system” to perform the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
, the target well and reference well being drilled into a reservoir,
This claim limitation expands on the wells references in the claim which are being normalized. The target and reference wells are the subjects of the judicial exceptions above. MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” This limitation applies the above judicial exception to target wells which are drilled into reservoirs. This limitation indicates the field of use of the judicial exception of a mathematical normalization process to reservoirs and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
and determining, based on the normalized pseudo target log, a reservoir quality of the reservoir that produces hydrocarbons.
The claim states to determine a reservoir quality based on the normalized pseudo target log. The claim limitation does not outline or explain how the normalized pseudo target log is used to derive a reservoir quality of the reservoir. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’” Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, acquiring, using a well logging tool, a target log in a target well and a reference log in a reference well;.
This limitation was considered mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the examiner considers this limitation to be well understood, routine and conventional. Please see par 1 of the specifications “Wells are commonly logged to acquire data that measures various
rock and fluid properties” Therefore, the usage of a well logging tool to gain well logs is considered well understood and routine and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the target log and the reference log each comprise a gamma ray log.
As stated under claim 1, the acquisition of a target/reference log was determined to be mere data gathering. The reference logs comprising a gamma ray log is a further recitation of the acquisition of the log data. The examiner understands this to further be well understood log information, see par 2: “The gamma ray (GR) log is a commonly available log and is one of the few logs available in horizontal wells.” Therefore, the logs being gamma ray logs does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, these logs are the subject of the judicial exceptions above, and do not perform additional actions which could integrate the judicial exceptions above into practical application. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application,” were this claim limitation applies the judicial exception to gamma ray logs, but does not perform an action to integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the target well and the reference well are horizontal or deviated wells.
The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application,” were this claim limitation applies the judicial exception horizontal or deviated wells, but does not perform an action to integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the regression relationship is a linear relationship.
This limitation expands on the determination of a regression relationship which was considered to be a textual replacement of mathematical calculation. The relationship being a linear relationship is a further recitation of the mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation.
Claim 5:The method of claim 1, wherein the pseudo target well and the pseudo reference well are perpendicular to the stratigraphic interval.
This limitation pertains to the projection of the target/reference wells onto pseudo target/reference wells which was determined to be an abstract idea. The pseudo target/reference wells being perpendicular to the stratigraphic interval is a choice made by an individual on which axis to conduct the projection. Therefore, this claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea of projecting the data from a well onto a different axis.
Claim 6:The method of claim 1, wherein identifying lithologies comprises fitting Gaussian mixture models to the first histogram and to the second histogram.
This claim limitation refers to identifying lithologies which was determined to be an abstract idea. Fitting gaussian mixture models to histograms is the process of fitting a gaussian mathematic distribution to a histograms data point. Where the examiner understands the term “fitting” to be a textual replacement to the calculations performed which match the gaussian distribution to the spread of data points. This is a further recitation of the abstract idea of identifying lithologies through the addition of a mathematic calculation. The MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. Therefore, this claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea of identifying lithologies from a histogram.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein peak values of the Gaussian mixture models are associated with the lithologies.
This claim limitation is a further recitation of identifying lithologies to the histograms, where the lithologies are associated with the peak values of the gaussian mixture models. This is an observation of the gaussian mixture model and an evaluation for the peak values in the model which are derived mathematically. Therefore, this is a further recitation of the abstract idea of identifying lithologies from a histogram.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 6, wherein modes of the Gaussian mixture models are used to fit the regression relationship.
As stated above, the “fitting” process as described is a textual replacement for performing a mathematic calculation. The Gaussian mixture model is a mathematic model. Where the modes used to fit the regression relationship is a further recitation of performing the mathematic calculation. Therefore, the claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
Claim 9:The method of claim 1, wherein the stratigraphic interval is a hydrocarbon reservoir.
This limitation defines what the stratigraphic interval represents. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” This limitation defines the field of use of the judicial exception to apply to hydrocarbon reservoirs, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10:The method of claim 1, wherein projecting the target log and projecting the reference log comprise interpolating onto a uniform sampling grid.
The projection of the target/reference logs was determined to recite an abstract idea. The process of Interpolating values onto a uniform sampling grid is a mathematical process in which values are estimated based on geometric distances/averaged values. The MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. Therefore, this claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea of projecting the target/reference logs.
Claims 11-20:Claims 11-20 are effective duplicates of claims 1-10. Claims 11-20 are directed to A system which is a machine. Claims 11-20 are rejected under similar rationales to claims 1-10. Furthermore, claims 11-20 recite A well logging tool
This is a recitation of a generic device for its defined use, (a well logging tool used to log a well). The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 11-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu_2016 “Normalizing Gamma-Ray Logs Acquired from a Mixture of Vertical and Horizontal Wells in the Haynesville Shale” , Zhang_2015 (US 20150134255 A1) , and Shier_2004 “Well log Normalization: Methods and Guidelines”
Claim 1:Xu_2016 makes obvious A method, comprising: (abstract: “This article introduces a practical workflow of normalizing gamma-ray (GR) logs acquired from both vertical and horizontal wells penetrating different geological subzones in the Haynesville shale”)
acquiring, using a well logging tool, (introduction par 1: “A gamma-ray (GR) log is available in almost every well drilled in the Haynesville shale. In many horizontal wells, LWD GR is the only acquired log that provides critical information for business decisions on drilling, fracturing, and completions. Due to the underlying tool physics, GR logs acquired under different drilling conditions and borehole environments need to be normalized to be quantitatively comparable across different zones and wells (Neinast and Knox, 1974; Aly et al., 1997).”) a target log in a target well and a reference log in a reference well; (abstract:” The normalized GR log in the nearest vertical well (Examiner note: reference log) is then used to reconstruct synthetic GR logs along horizontal well paths using true stratigraphic projection method.” … page 638 col 2 par 2: “We propose a workflow for normalizing GR logs, from multiple horizontal wells, (Examiner note: target log) to enable interpreters to use the GR log in horizontal wells for reservoir characterization. The workflow was tested with a group of 16 horizontal wells (Examiner note: target well) and 8 vertical wells (Examiner note: reference well) in the Haynesville shale.”
and using a well log interpretation system: (page 638 col 2 par 2: “We propose a workflow for normalizing GR logs, from multiple horizontal wells, to enable interpreters to use the GR log in horizontal wells for reservoir characterization.”)
identifying a stratigraphic interval in the target well and in the reference well, (page 639 col 2 step 1: “Normalize GR logs in all vertical wells in the study area over the same stratigraphic interval” (Examiner note: Where this process is the workflow for both the vertical and horizontal / aka target and reference wells) the target well and reference well being drilled into a reservoir, page 638 col 1 par 2: “A gamma-ray (GR) log is available in almost every well drilled in the Haynesville shale “ … page 638 col 2 par 2: “We propose a workflow for normalizing GR logs, from multiple horizontal wells, to enable interpreters to use the GR log in horizontal wells for reservoir characterization. The workflow was tested with a group of 16 horizontal wells and 8 vertical wells in the Haynesville shale.”)
and projecting the reference log over the stratigraphic interval from the reference well onto a pseudo reference log in a pseudo reference well, (page 639 col 2 step 2: “Construct a synthetic GR log (Examiner note: pseudo reference log) along each horizontal well path (Examiner note: The pseudo reference well) by interpolating the normalized GR log (Examiner note: reference log over the stratigraphic interval) in the nearest vertical well (Examiner note: reference well) using the TSP method (Fig. 3).”
identifying lithologies (page 638 col 1 par 2: “Consequently, the GR-log histogram in horizontal wells is not supposed to be comparable with nearby vertical wells because it measures rock populations in different subzones (Examiner note: The GR histograms identifies lithologies) from a first histogram of the Fig. 6—Comparison of histograms of raw horizontal GR log (green), (Examiner note: target log) reconstructed GR log (red), (Examiner note: the pseudo reference log) and normalized horizontal GR log (blue).)
determining, using the first figure 5: “Fig. 5—An example of normalizing GR logs from a horizontal to a vertical well. Track 1, raw GR log measurement from the horizontal well; (Examiner note: GR log of target well) Track 2, reconstructed synthetic GR log using true stratigraphic projection from the nearby vertical well; (Examiner note: GR log of pseudo reference log) Track 3, comparison of raw and synthetic GR logs along the horizontal well; Track 4, comparison (Examiner note: a relationship) of the normalized GR log and the reconstructed synthetic GR logs along the horizontal well.” )
applying the page 639 step 3: “Step 3: Normalize the raw GR log measurement (Examiner note: generating a normalized target log from the target log) to the synthetic GR log by enforcing a consistent statistical distribution (equalized mean and standard deviation).” (Examiner note: applying a relationship)
determining, based on the normalized Abstract: “The workflow delivers a set of normalized GR logs in a group of vertical and horizontal wells that provide a reliable basis for reservoir description and modeling.” (Examiner note: Which makes obvious a reservoir quality)
Xu does not expressly recite projecting the target log covering the stratigraphic interval from the target well onto a pseudo target log in a pseudo target well
)
Zhang, however, makes obvious projecting the target log covering the stratigraphic interval from the target well onto a pseudo target log in a pseudo target wellpar 219: “With particular respect to FIG. 47, an embodiment in which a pseudo pilot hole 4700 is created through the projection of an available horizontal GR log (examiner note: a target log) onto the vertical direction (examiner note: into a pseudo target log) by following the reference surface plane 4702 using the TST3D. In some embodiments, the gamma ray samples along the wellbore are projected onto a pseudo vertical pilot hole (examiner note: from the target well to the pseudo target well) if they correspond to the monotonic increase of the computed TST3D as the MD increases--that is, GR values along the wellbore are added to the pseudo pilot log signature if TST3D is larger than the TST3D values of all previous MD samples.”) … par 221: “ Because sampling density may vary after the projection, depending on the relative angle between the wellbore and the dipping stratigraphy, an interpolation combined with resampling may be used in some embodiments to obtain evenly spaced GR samples in order to facilitate log squaring in subsequent operations.”
PNG
media_image3.png
549
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) see the pseudo target log above)
see pseudo target log above, where the normalized pseudo target log is the result of applying the normalization process of Xu to the pseudo target log of Zhang)
see pseudo target log above.)par 3: “Deviated and horizontal wells produced from directional drilling may be useful in some applications to enhance the development of unconventional reservoirs, particularly when combined with enhanced oil recovery techniques such as hydraulic fracturing”)
Xu and Zhang are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Xu and Zhang. The rational for doing so would have been to apply a teaching or motivation in the prior art.
The prior art of Xu teaches a workflow which first normalizes vertical wells. Then the normalized vertical wells are projected onto the horizontal wells. By doing so, the horizontal wells are able to be compared with each other, this is done using the TSP method. While Xu does not teach projecting both the vertical and horizontal wells, it does a workflow which utilizes the same underlying mathematical process. Please see figure 3 in Xu.
PNG
media_image4.png
288
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“Fig. 3—Schematic illustrating the principle of the TSP method from a pilot well to the horizontal well to reconstruct GR log based on a layercake reservoir model. If two points (Point A and Point B) have the same vertical offset from the top of HSVL, their GR readings are assumed to be same (GR_A = GR_B). So the GR reading from the vertical wells can be projected on to the horizontal well path using the geosteering and well survey information.”
As shown above, the way the vertical well is projected onto the horizontal well is done through the vertical axis offset from the top of the common HSVL Top horizon. As shown by the dotted red line, this is an equivalent and perpendicular projection when mapping the vertical to the horizontal based on an axis. This is mathematically equivalent to mapping both the vertical and horizontal logs onto the same pseudo log axis.
Regardless, Xu does not expressly recite a process where the horizontal well is projected to a pseudo target well for normalization. That is because the process is not required in the presence of a vertical target well. Zhang however, recites the process of projecting a horizontal target well, and also provides a reason to perform this process, see par 165: “In embodiments in which a reference log from a vertical pilot well is not available, a pseudo pilot well reference log may be created dynamically during the automated interpretation process by projecting the measurement of the horizontal well onto an equivalent vertical hole using the computed TST. Further, this reference log response may be updated every time a new bend is introduced into the model in some embodiments. “ From this paragraph, a person ordinarily skilled in the art would understand that a horizontal well when projected functions identically to a vertical pilot well for the sake of normalization.
Therefore, a person ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine the algorithm of Xu which normalizes horizontal wells through the usage of vertical pilot wells, with the projection of the horizontal target wells and would be motivated to do so to dynamically generate reference logs from horizontal wells if the vertical pilot wells are not available in order to match the workflow of Xu to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Xu and Zhang do not expressly recite
Shier however makes obvious page 272 col 2 par 3: “Type-well method A representative sample of the wells is examined and one of the wells is selected as the type well for that particular curve. As part of that process all other curves are examined. In general, a good type well has values that are the same as those in many other wells and has an in-gauge hole. The data for each of the individual wells are then compared with the type well. If adequate software is available, the person making the comparison will be able to compare histogram patterns, crossplot patterns, and vertically compressed depth plots simultaneously. Variables for the basic normalization equation (Examiner note: Regression relationship, see equation below) are adjusted until a good fit with the type well is obtained. Many wells may be simply checked but not adjusted at all.”) .. page 270
PNG
media_image5.png
112
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
par 270 col 1 par 2: “The normalization equation makes linear adjustments to log curves according to standard parameters picked in the type well, shifting the curve across the scale and/or changing the scaling factor in one operation” … conclusion: “Curve normalization is accomplished using a standard linear equation”
Xu and Shier are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Xu, Zhang, and Shier. The rational for doing so would have been the simple substitution of known elements to obtain a predictable result.
Xu teaches a normalization workflow between a pilot (ie: reference) well and a horizontal (ie: target) using the GR logs where the mean and standard deviation are enforced to be consistent. Xu does not teach using histograms to make these comparisons, but, does use histograms consistently to compare the logs of the different wells, see figures 2, 6, 7 and 8. Shier states page 269 col 2 par 1: “Previous workers have established the basic tools of well log normalization and published individual case studies. Neinast and Knox (1973) published the first study on well log normalization. This was followed by three other well documented case studies: Patchett and Coalson (1979), Lang (1980), and Reimer (1985). These authors established histograms and crossplots as standard techniques for comparing curve responses between wells. Where Shier establishes that the usage of histograms is a routine and conventional method for comparing wells as tools for well log normalization.”
Shier also states “Tampering with the standard deviation of the data from a well ignores the fact that in some wells a greater spread of the data may be due simply to factors such as more noise, severe hole enlargement effects in that well, and different thin-bed response by different tools. Brute-force statistical warping of the data may result in entirely incorrect curve scaling.” And provides other methods such as the “Type-well method,” establishing them as interchangeable methods for the same goal of normalization.
Therefore, a person ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine the algorithm of Xu which normalizes horizontal wells through the usage of vertical pilot wells. And to modify the algorithm by substituting the GR log comparison with the routine technique of using histograms to compare the two wells, as well as substituting the statistical normalization to use a regression linear relationship such as in the type well method for the benefit of ensuring correct curve scaling to achieve the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2:
Xu makes further obvious The method of claim 1, wherein the target log and the reference log each comprise a gamma ray log. (Abstract: “This article introduces a practical workflow of normalizing gamma-ray (GR) logs acquired from both vertical and horizontal wells penetrating different geological subzones in the Haynesville shale”)
Claim 3:
Xu makes further obvious The method of claim 1, wherein the target well abstract: “The normalized GR log in the nearest vertical well is then used to reconstruct synthetic GR logs along horizontal well paths using true stratigraphic projection method. The measured GR logs from the horizontal wells are then compared and normalized with the synthetic GR logs to enforce statistical consistency with the normalized GR logs in the associated vertical well.”)
Xu does not expressly recite wherein the reference well … [is] horizontal or deviated wells.
Zhang however makes obvious wherein the reference well … [is] horizontal or deviated wells. par 165: “In embodiments in which a reference log from a vertical pilot well is not available, a pseudo pilot well reference log may be created dynamically during the automated interpretation process by projecting the measurement of the horizontal well onto an equivalent vertical hole using the computed TST. Further, this reference log response may be updated every time a new bend is introduced into the model in some embodiments. “) Examiner note: Which makes obvious the using a horizontal or deviated well as a reference well.
Where as stated previously, a person ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine the algorithm of Xu which normalizes horizontal wells through the usage of vertical pilot wells, with the projection of the horizontal target wells and would be motivated to do so to dynamically generate reference logs from horizontal wells if the vertical pilot wells are not available in order to match the workflow of Xu to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 1,
Xu does not expressly recite,
but Shier makes further obvious wherein the regression relationship is a linear relationship. (par 270 col 1 par 2: “The normalization equation makes linear adjustments to log curves according to standard parameters picked in the type well, shifting the curve across the scale and/or changing the scaling factor in one operation” … conclusion: “Curve normalization is accomplished using a standard linear equation”)
Whereas previously stated, a person ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine the algorithm of Xu which normalizes horizontal wells through the usage of vertical pilot wells. And to modify the algorithm by substituting the GR log comparison with the routine technique of using histograms to compare the two wells, as well as substituting the statistical normalization to use a regression linear relationship such as in the type well method for the benefit of ensuring correct curve scaling to achieve the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 5:The method of claim 1,
Xu makes further obvious wherein the pseudo target well and the pseudo reference well are perpendicular to the stratigraphic interval.
PNG
media_image6.png
362
596
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Page 639 col 1 par 2: “Figure 3 illustrates how the GR log acquired in a vertical well is projected to its corresponding horizontal wells by using a true stratigraphic projection (TSP) method. Implementation of a TSP algorithm is straightforward so it will not be detailed in this paper. The basic assumption is a layer-cake reservoir model where reservoir properties are the same at a certain vertical true stratigraphic thickness (TST) offset depth to the horizon top”
Examiner note: where the projections (red line) between the well which relates their position offset to the top horizon is which is understood to be done perpendicular to the top horizon. Where Xu makes obvious the pseudo wells being perpendicular to the stratigraphic interval.
Claim 10:The method of claim 1,
Xu makes further obvious wherein projecting the target log and projecting the reference log comprise interpolating onto a uniform sampling grid.
PNG
media_image6.png
362
596
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Page 639 col 2 par 2: “Step 2: Construct a synthetic GR log along each horizontal well path by interpolating the normalized GR log in the nearest vertical well using the TSP method (Fig. 3”
Examiner note: This is a uniform sampling grid.
Claims 11-15, 20:Claims 11-15 and 20 are effectively similar to claims 1-5 and 10 and are therefore rejected under similar rational. Additional, claims 11-15 and 20 are directed to a system (Zhang par 251: “Some of the methods and processes described above, including processes, as listed above, can be performed by a processor. The term "processor" should not be construed to limit the embodiments disclosed herein to any particular device type or system”) , where it would be obvious to combine Zhang with Xu for reasons already stated. Therefore claims 11-15 and 20 are rejected under similar rationales to claims 1-5 and 10
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu_2016, Zhang_2015, Shier_2004, and Alvarez_2021 (“Interpretation of geochemical anomalies and domains using Gaussian mixture models”)
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying lithologies comprises
Xu and shier do not expressly recite fitting Gaussian mixture models to the first histogram and to the second histogram.
Alvarez however makes obvious fitting Gaussian mixture models to the first histogram and to the second histogram. (Abstract: “The results obtained include mixture models of 2–3 populations associated with main geochemical processes and/or dominant lithological sources” … page 6 col 2 par 2: “In this procedure, the Gaussian mixture modeling tool was used to classify the samples. Three stages were used to model Gaussian mixtures. In a first stage, a Visual Basic code was developed in a Microsoft Excel macro for to fit a histogram with frequencies of the observed data and a histogram with frequencies calculated from the Gaussian mixture model.”)
Xu, shier, and Alvarez are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoirs Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Xu, Shier, and Alvarez. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The prior art of Shier establishes a known method in the art of normalizing well log data using the histograms of their lithologies. Alvarez provides a method of comparing histograms using lithologies through a GMM process which performs the process of Shier through a statistic means. One ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably find that the technique of Alvarez which fits a distribution over a histogram model would result in a statistical determination of peaks of the histogram and could be used to fit the normalization of Shier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the GMM fitting to histograms of Alvarez with the normalization equation of Shier for the benefit of automatically determining peaks of lithologies to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 6,
Xu does not expressly recite wherein peak values of the Gaussian mixture models are associated with the lithologies.
Alvarez however makes obvious wherein peak values of the Gaussian mixture models are associated with the lithologies. (page 3 col 2 par 1: “One way to determine the presence of two or more populations in a data set is by using graphical tools. In histograms, populations mixture in a data set can be reflected in the presence of two or more frequency peaks (bimodal or multimodal) in separate class in intervals when the difference of the means is greater than the values of the standard deviations.” (Examiner note: Where the GMM are fitted to histograms) … abstract: “To mixture modeling, CLR transformation and the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm were used. The results obtained include mixture models of 2–3 populations associated with main geochemical processes and/or dominant lithological sources”)
Xu, shier, and Alvarez are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoirs Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Xu, Shier, and Alvarez. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The prior art of Shier establishes a known method in the art of normalizing well log data using the histograms of their lithologies. Alvarez provides a method of comparing histograms using lithologies through a GMM process which performs the process of Shier through a statistic means. One ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably find that the technique of Alvarez which fits a distribution over a histogram model would result in a statistical determination of peaks of the histogram and could be used to fit the normalization of Shier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the GMM fitting to histograms of Alvarez with the normalization equation of Shier for the benefit of automatically determining peaks of lithologies to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 6,
Shier makes obvious wherein modes of the Gaussian mixture models [peaks of the histograms] (page 271 fig4. “FIG. 4 Some typical gamma ray histogram patterns. Pattern a is generated from beds of two distinct rock types. Min and Max values are best picked on the peaks.”) are used to fit the regression relationship. (page 270 col 1 par 4: “For a log curve whose unnormalized values are designated Vlog, the normalized values of the curve Vnorm are given by
Vnorm = Rmin + ( Rmax - Rmin )( Vlog - Wmin ) / (Wmax - Wmin ) .
Wmin is the value of a specific lithology in each well. Generally, it is near theminimum value for that curve in that interval. Wmax is the value of a different specific lithology in each well. It is usually near the maximum value for that curve in that interval.”)
Shier does not expressly recite modes of the Gaussian mixture models
Alvarez however makes obvious modes of the Gaussian mixture models. (page 3 col 2 par 1: “One way to determine the presence of two or more populations in a data set is by using graphical tools. In histograms, populations mixture in a data set can be reflected in the presence of two or more frequency peaks (bimodal or multimodal) in separate class in intervals when the difference of the means is greater than the values of the standard deviations.” (Examiner note: Where the GMM are fitted to histograms) … abstract: “To mixture modeling, CLR transformation and the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm were used. The results obtained include mixture models of 2–3 populations associated with main geochemical processes and/or dominant lithological sources”)
Xu, shier, and Alvarez are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoirs Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Xu, Shier, and Alvarez. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The prior art of Shier establishes a known method in the art of normalizing well log data using the histograms of their lithologies. Alvarez provides a method of comparing histograms using lithologies through a GMM process which performs the process of Shier through a statistic means. One ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably find that the technique of Alvarez which fits a distribution over a histogram model would result in a statistical determination of peaks of the histogram and could be used to fit the normalization of Shier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the GMM fitting to histograms of Alvarez with the normalization equation of Shier for the benefit of automatically determining peaks of lithologies to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 16-18:Claims 16-18 are effectively similar to claims 6-8 and are rejected under a similar rational to claims 6-8 as well as claim 11.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu_2016”, Zhang_2015, Shier_2004, and as further evidenced by May_2018
Claim 9:Xu as evidenced by May makes obvious The method of claim 1, wherein the stratigraphic interval is a hydrocarbon reservoir. (page 639 col 1 par 2: “The basic assumption is a layer-cake reservoir model where reservoir properties are the same at a certain vertical true stratigraphic thickness (TST) offset depth to the horizon top. In a heterogeneous shale reservoir, this assumption is often not true; however, comparison between the acquired LWD GR log and the projected GR log is an indicator of how good the layercake model is. Before quantifying the GR log mismatch, normalization between the acquired LWD GR log and the projected GR log needs to be performed. That is to say, the GR log in a horizontal well has to be normalized with the vertical well first.”
Where May explains page 6 par 2: “A second way that shale reservoirs store hydrocarbons, is as adsorbed gas and oil attached to the oil- and gas-wet particles, that is, the organic matter in the rocks (Spears and Jackson 2009)”
Claim 19:Claims 19 is effectively similar to claim 9 and are rejected under a similar rational to claim 19 as well as claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cluff_2004 (“Petrophysics of the Lance Sandstone Reservoirs in Jonah Field, Sublette County, Wyoming”) “Most petrophysical field studies begin by normalizing the log data to minimize differences caused by random logging errors and other noise in the data set [pg 217 col 1 par 2] … Neutron-porosity and bulk-density logs were normalized to match a suite of eight ‘‘type’’ logs. Composite histograms for each measurement were constructed from the data over the top 1000 ft (300m) of the Lance Formation in these wells (Figures 2, 3). [pge 217 col 2 par 3] …. “Individual histograms of the equivalent stratigraphic interval in each well were then compared to the composite histograms to determine the normalization shift” [ pge 218 col 1 par 1] … “Gamma-ray logs were offset to match a consistent clean sandstone line, and a gain correction was applied to match the sandstone-to-shale span of the composite histogram in the same 8 wells used for the porosity normalization (Figure 4)” [pg 218 col 2 par 2]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights