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 01/07/2025
Claims 1-20 pending
Claims 1-20 rejected
Priority
No claims to foreign or domestic priority made in application data sheet received on 08/05/2023. Application data sheet accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
Responsive to IDS forms received on 08/25/2023 and 01/07/2025. IDS forms accepted by examiner and all references considered.
Drawings
Drawings received on 08/25/2023 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Abstract received on 08/25/2023 contains less than 150 words and contains no legal or implied phraseology. Abstract is accepted by the examiner.
Specification received on 08/25/2023 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 states “The system of claim 13, further comprising a drilling system configured to drill a wellbore guided by planned wellbore trajectory.” This was likely meant to be written as “The system of claim 13, further comprising a drilling system configured to drill a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims state updating the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a geometry of the larger tree. The specifications do not outline a way in which a grid refinement field is updated in relation to the geometry of the larger tree. The specifications also do not outline what the geometry of the tree entails.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8, 13, and 19 recite the limitation "a result of the reservoir simulation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims do not contain a reservoir simulation being performed, and therefore the claim limitation is indefinite.
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 of generating a reservoir simulation grid for a subterranean reservoir, 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: , defining a coarse simulation grid pertaining to, at least a portion, of the reservoir model
Defining a coarse simulation grid is outlining a generic grid on top of a reservoir model. This is a mathematic/conceptual grid overlayed on top of the reservoir model which holds values pertaining to the reservoir simulation (ie: fluid flow). 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.” Because a grid can be outlined by a human mind using a pen and paper, the claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
, determining a grid refinement field based, at least in part, on the reservoir model
The determination of a grid refinement field is the determination of which areas of the grid near more focused simulation effort compared to other regions of the grid. For example, the entrance to a wellbore as opposed to rock far away from the reservoir system. This is an observation of the reservoir model and an evaluation of which locations require grid refinement. 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 an abstract idea.
, forming a tree based on the coarse simulation grid
A tree in the context of software engineering/computer simulation model is a data structure which holds the refinement of the grid, where the grid is defined by the tree (such as a binary search tree, or in this applications case, an octree where each parent node contains 8 children’s nodes). This is a conceptual storage of data which an individual can reasonably create in his mind or with a pen and paper. 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.
, refining the tree at least in part, on an intersection of the grid refinement field and the coarse simulation grid, and
Refining the tree where the tree is a conceptual octree means to add lead nodes in response to the grid being in the grid refined field. This is a continuation of the determination of the refinement field and the creation of the tree, both of which are considered mental processes. Therefore, this claim limitation is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
defining the reservoir simulation grid based, at least in part, on the refined tree and the coarse simulation grid.
“Defining the reservoir simulation grid” based on “on the refined tree and the coarse simulation grid” is the creation of the reservoir simulation grid product. As stated, this is the addition of grid cells to a simulation grid based on the refined tree. Where areas requiring more attention contain more coarse grid cells. This limitation is the product of the earlier abstract steps performed in sequence, which can be recorded and written with pen and paper. 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.”
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites A method of generating a reservoir simulation grid for a subterranean reservoir, comprising
This limitation states the goal of the method and what field of use it is applied to. 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.” Therefore this claim limitation does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
using a reservoir simulation system:
This limitation states that the steps of the claim which include judicial exceptions are performed by a generic system. 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.
obtaining a reservoir model , wherein the reservoir model comprises a plurality of wellbore trajectories
This claim limitation states that a reservoir model is received. And describes the data received as 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.
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, the claim does not recite additional elements that 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, further comprising
performing a reservoir simulation using the reservoir simulation grid, wherein the reservoir simulation simulates fluid percolation within the subterranean reservoir over a plurality of fluid production time intervals.
Performing a reservoir simulation encompasses a mathematic grid simulation where mathematical relationships describe how fluid percolation spreads across grid cells over discrete time steps. 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.” Because a reservoir simulation, where the simulation encompasses a mathematic simulation across a mathematic grid can be performed by an individual with a pen and paper, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3:The method of claim 2, further comprising altering a reservoir production operation based on the reservoir simulation.
The claim does not outline how the reservoir production is altered in reference to the simulation performed. 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 limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 4:The method of claim 3, wherein the reservoir production operation, guided by the reservoir simulation is selected from the group consisting of
drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore; changing, using a choke, a production rate of at least one well, and changing, using a pumping system, an injection rate of a stimulation fluid into at least one well.
The claim does not outline how the reservoir production is altered in reference to the simulation performed. 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 limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the grid refinement field is based, at least in part, on a spatial location of points in the field relative to perforation positions along the plurality of wellbore trajectories.
This limitation further defines the determination step of the grid refinement field which was determined to recite a mental process. This claim limitation states that determination is based on an observation and evaluation of spatial location of points relative to the preformation positions. Therefore, this claim limitation is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
Claim 6:The method of claim 1, wherein refining the tree comprises:
forming a larger tree by adding leaves to the tree based, at least in part, on the grid refinement field; and deleting leaves on the larger tree based on refinement factors of adjacent leaves.
This limitation describes the addition and deletion of leaf nodes to a octree data structure based on the created grid refinement field. As previously stated, the creation of the tree recites a mental process which can be performed by an individual with a pen and paper. Adding leaves means to add child nodes to a parent node. Deleting leaves means to merge the child nodes. 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.
Claim 7:The method of claim 6, further comprising updating the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a geometry of the larger tree.
As previously stated, the determination of the grid refinement field is a mental process of observation and evaluation. This claim limitation states that the observation relates to the geometry of the larger tree. Therefore, the claim further recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8:The method of claim 1, further comprising: using the reservoir simulation system:
As stated, the presence of a reservoir simulation system is the presence of generic computing machinery to perform the judicial exceptions, which does not apply the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
updating the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a result of the reservoir simulation, wherein the reservoir simulation simulates fluid percolation within the subterranean reservoir over a plurality of fluid production time intervals
As previously stated, the determination of the grid refinement field is a mental process of observation and evaluation. This claim limitation states that the observation relates to a result of the reservoir simulation. Where the simulation encompasses a mental process as stated previously of a mathematic grid simulation which propagates math values and equations across grid cells/nodes in a tree.
refining the tree based, at least in part, on the intersection of the updated grid refinement field and the coarse simulation grid,
This limitation describes the addition and deletion of leaf nodes to an octree data structure based on the created grid refinement field. As previously stated, the creation of the tree recites a mental process which can be performed by an individual with a pen and paper. Adding leaves means to add child nodes to a parent node. Deleting leaves means merging the child nodes. 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.
updating the reservoir simulation grid based, at least in part, on the refined tree and the coarse simulation grid,
Updating the reservoir simulation grid is inheriting the refined tree structure to the reservoir grid. This is an extension of the previous steps and is a further recitation of the abstract idea of creating a reservoir simulation grid.
and performing an updated reservoir simulation using the updated reservoir simulation grid, wherein the updated reservoir simulation simulates fluid percolation within the subterranean reservoir over a fluid production time interval later than the fluid production time intervals in the plurality of fluid production time intervals.
As stated, simulation encompasses a mental process as stated previously of a mathematic grid simulation which propagates math values and equations across grid cells/nodes in a tree. This occurs in the newly updated tree later step. Therefore the claim is a further recitation of the mental process.
Claim 9:The method of claim 8, further comprising: using the reservoir simulation system:
As stated, the presence of a reservoir simulation system is the presence of generic computing machinery to perform the judicial exceptions, which does not apply the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
correcting the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a difference between a fluid production rate predicted by the reservoir simulation at a simulated production time and an observed fluid production rate,
The determination of the grid refinement field was determined to be an abstract idea of observing a field and evaluating where refinement should occur. The claim limitation states that this observation is based on an observed fluid production rate. Therefore, the claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
correcting the tree based, at least in part, on the intersection of the corrected grid refinement field and the coarse simulation grid,
The creation of the tree was determined to be an abstract idea of creating a tree-based data structure. This tree-based data structure is based on the corrected grid refinement field above. This correction is modifying the leaves of the tree pertaining to the new grid refinement and is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
correcting the reservoir simulation grid based, at least in part, on the corrected tree and the coarse simulation grid,
This is the creation of the simulation grid based on the corrected tree structure. As stated previously, the creation of the simulation grid recited an abstract idea. This is splitting up a grid based on a given octree structure. Therefore, the claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
and performing a repeated reservoir simulation using the corrected reservoir simulation grid, wherein the repeated reservoir simulation simulates fluid percolation within the subterranean reservoir over a fluid production time interval selected from the plurality of fluid production time intervals.
As stated, simulation encompasses a mental process as stated previously of a mathematic grid simulation which propagates math values and equations across grid cells/nodes in a tree. This occurs in the newly updated tree later step using corrected grid and tree information. Therefore the claim is a further recitation of the mental process.
Claim 10:The method of claim 1, wherein forming a tree comprises forming an octree.
This claim limitation describes the abstract tree data structure used in the mental process above and is a further recitation of the mental process.
Claim 11:Claim 11 is an effective duplicate to claim 1 except that it is a system Which is a machine. Therefore, the claim is rejected under a similar rational to claim 1.
Claim 12:Claim 12 is an effective duplicate to claim 2 except that It depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationales to claim 2 and 11.
Claim 13:The system of claim 11, further comprising a wellbore planning system configured to plan a planned wellbore trajectory based, at least in part on a result of the reservoir simulation.
The claim does not outline how the reservoir simulation results influence the wellbore planning system. Furthermore, the claim does not actually apply the system to drill the well. 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’”
Claim 14:The system of claim 13, further comprising a drilling system configured to drill a wellbore guided by planned wellbore trajectory.
The claim does not outline how the reservoir simulation results influence the drilling system. Furthermore, the claim does not actually apply the system to drill the well. 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’”
Claim 15:
The system of claim 12, further comprising a pumping system, configured to pump a stimulation fluid into at least one well guided by a result of the reservoir simulation.
The claim does not outline how the reservoir simulation results influence the pumping system. Furthermore, the claim does not actually apply the system to pump the stimulation fluid. 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’”
Claim 16:Claim 16 is effectively similar to claim 5 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under a similar rational to claims 5 and 11.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is effectively similar to claim 6 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under a similar rational to claims 6 and 11.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is effectively similar to claim 7 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under as similar rational to claims 7 and 11.
Claim 19:Claim 19 is effectively similar to claim 8 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under a similar rational to claims 8 and 11.
Claim 20:Claim 20 is effectively similar to claim 9 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under a similar rational to claims 9 and 11.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 17 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorell_2019 (EP 2831804 B1) and Gonzales_2016 (“Adaptive Grid Refinement Improves Gas Injection Modeling”)
Claim 1:Gorell_2019 makes obvious A method of generating a reservoir simulation grid for a subterranean reservoir, comprising: (Summary of the Invention par 1: “According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided a computer-implemented method of modeling a formation, comprising: applying a coarse grid to a geologic formation of interest,” … par 3: “a computer-implemented reservoir simulation system”)
using a reservoir simulation system: (par 3: “a computer implemented reservoir simulation system”)
obtaining a reservoir model, wherein the reservoir model comprises a plurality of wellbore trajectories, (Detailed description par 4: “As shown in Fig. 3, the reservoir 300 includes one or more geologic features of interest, such as fractures, wellbores or the like. In Fig. 3, fractures 302, 304, and 306 are shown. A model of reservoir 300 should ultimately predict the areas of the reservoir in which fluid and/or pressure movement associated with the fractures will occur. For the purposes of the model created by system 110, these fractures may be either man-made or naturally occurring. In other embodiments, they may be other types of reservoir features that are of interest.” … par 19: “Specifically, the number, location and trajectory of wellbores in a formation relative to the fractures can be determined using the method of the invention in order to achieve a particular flow over a period of time.”)
defining a coarse simulation grid pertaining to, at least a portion, of the reservoir model, (Fig. 2 “Apply coarse grid to reservoir” (202). Detailed description par 5: “in step 202, a coarse grid 308 is applied to the reservoir 300.”)
determining a grid refinement field based, at least in part, on the reservoir model, (fig 2. “Identify structure of interest in reservoir” (204) … “Determine fine grid zone around structure” (210).
forming a
(View figures 5 – 7, which depicts the coarse reservoir simulation grid (310) of fig 5., with a grid refinement field (320) of fig 6, which then contains refined grid cells (324) of figure 7. See also figure 2: “Determine fine grid zone around structure (210) and “Apply LGR (Examiner note: local grid refinement) to fine grid zone)
and defining the reservoir simulation grid based, at least in part, on the refined [grid] Detailed description par 15: “Referring again to Fig. 2, at step 212, a local grid refinement is applied to the fine grid zone 320 determined in step 210. That is, each coarse grid block within the fine grid zone 320 is sub-divided into a plurality of smaller (i.e., finer) grid blocks. Thus, when the reservoir model is simulated, pressure and/or fluid movement is discretely calculated for each new fine grid block to achieve a more accurate simulation”)
Gorell does not expressly recite
Gonzales however makes obvious
PNG
media_image1.png
687
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gorell and Gonzales are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling. Specifically local grid model refinement. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Gorell and Gonzales. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The prior art of Gorell contains a base device (method or product) which describes a local grid refinement methodology applied to a reservoir model for reservoir simulation. The prior art of Gonzales contains a known technique applicable to this base device, which is refining the grid using a tree data structure where the tree represents the refinement of the grid blocks. Furthermore, Gonzales applies the tree data structure directly to the same problem of Gorell (LGR for reservoir models) which would allow one ordinarily skilled in the art to recognize that applying to technique of Gonzales using trees would have a predictable result to the system of Gorell of allowing for LGR. Gonzales states page 5 par 2: “The prime motivation for using quadtrees is the ability to reduce space required to store data by aggregating homogeneous blocks through quadtree decomposition (Samet, 1989). This method provides great flexibility and speed to the partition and data storage process with promising applications in adaptive mesh refinement algorithms.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the LGR workflow of Gorell with the usage of trees for LGR grid refining for application of a known technique for a predictable result for the benefit of providing flexibility and speed to the partition of Gorell to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2:The method of claim 1, further comprising
Gorell makes further obvious performing a reservoir simulation using the reservoir simulation grid, wherein the reservoir simulation simulates fluid percolation within the subterranean reservoir (“Further, the method includes determining a fine grid zone around the structure based upon a time period for flow simulation (Examiner note: fluid percolation) of the geologic formation and a geologic characteristic of the geologic formation in a local region adjacent the structure and applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone.” over a plurality ofpar 12: “Referring back to Fig. 2, at step 208, a time period for the simulation of the movement of pressure in the reservoir 300 is selected. For example, it may be desirable to predict flow of a formation over a one year period, or perhaps over an extended period, such as 20 years. In some instances, the time period selected depends on the predicted number of years a reservoir will be producing oil and/or gas. In the present embodiment, a time period is selected in days, however, in other embodiment, different time units may be utilized.”) Examiner note: Where this limitation is either understood as (“choosing among different time interval options”) or (“multiple different time intervals”), where the above passage makes both obvious, where the multiple different time intervals occurs where the method is repeated across multiple time periods.
Gorell does not expressly recite fluid production
Gonzales however makes obvious fluid production (page 10 par 3: “Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 display calculated oil production rate, gas injection rate, average pressure, and produced gas-oil ratio for three cases: 1) fine grid (40×40×8 with 12,800 cells), coarse grid (20×40×4 with 1,600 cells), and an adaptive grid (variable number of cells ranging from 746 to 6,318).”
PNG
media_image2.png
246
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
page 11 figure 10.
As already stated, Gorell and Gonzales are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling. Specifically local grid model refinement. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Gorell and Gonzales. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
The prior art of Gorell contains a base device (method or product) which describes a local grid refinement methodology applied to a reservoir model for reservoir simulation. The prior art of Gonzales contains a known technique applicable to this base device, which is performing a grid production simulation of fluid production. One ordinarily skilled in the art understands that the prior art of Gorell which simulates fluid flow before “wells are drilled [detailed description paragraph 2]” is done so in order to simulate fluid production form that well.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the LGR workflow of Gorell with the usage of production simulation for application of a known technique for a predictable result for the benefit of providing fluid production estimation to determine where “wells are [to be] drilled” in Gorell to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 3
Gorell makes obvious The method of claim 2, further comprising altering a reservoir production operation based on the reservoir simulation. (Detailed description par 23: “ The method also includes applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone to determine flow adjacent the structure, selecting a position and trajectory for a wellbore in the formation based on the determined flow. Further, the method includes preparing equipment to construct a portion of said wellbore and drilling a wellbore in accordance with the selected trajectory”
Claim 4:Gorell makes obvious The method of claim 3, wherein the reservoir production operation, guided by the reservoir simulation is selected from the group consisting of drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore; changing, using a choke, a production rate of at least one well, and changing, using a pumping system, an injection rate of a stimulation fluid into at least one well. (Detailed description par 23: “The method also includes applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone to determine flow adjacent the structure, selecting a position and trajectory for a wellbore in the formation based on the determined flow. Further, the method includes preparing equipment to construct a portion of said wellbore and drilling a wellbore in accordance with the selected trajectory”
Claim 6:The method of claim 1,
Gorell makes obvious wherein refining the fig 2 “Apply LGR to fine grid zone (212)”
fig, 2 “determine fine grid zone around structure (210), fig 2 “Apply LGR to fine grid zone (212)”)
Gorell does not expressly recite
forming a larger tree by adding leaves to the tree
and deleting leaves on the larger tree based on refinement factors of adjacent leaves.
Gonzales however makes obvious page 5 par 1: “Select grid refinement Quadtree spatial discretization is the basis for selecting the size of grid-blocks in the model”)
forming a larger tree by adding leaves to the tree [when the grid is subdivided]
PNG
media_image3.png
663
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and deleting leaves on the larger tree based on refinement factors of adjacent leaves. (page 6 par 2: “To illustrate the proposed methodology, Fig. 6 shows an example of quadtree decomposition of a 2D grid with front-like properties. Initially, the fine grid (sub figure Step 1) has 64 cells arranged in an 8×8 structure (2n×2n, where n=3). Following a top down construction, the first step is evaluating whether the grid can be represented by sub cells (children) merging 4×4 cells (2n×2n, where n=2) as shown in sub-figure Step 2; all sub cells passing the homogeneity test are merged, in this case, only the top-right corner. Cells failing the test are evaluated to be represented by sub-cells merging 2×2 cells (2n×2n, where n=1) as shown in subfigure Step 3; if the homogeneity test passes, cells would be merged. We repeat the process until the grid reaches the finest level of refinement (sub-figure Step 4).” Examiner note: Where merging leaf cells to the parent is the deletion of those leaf cells.
The prior art of Gorrell practices a method of grid refinement but does not expressly recite representing the grid refinement strategy in terms of octree data structure. Gonzales makes this obvious where one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that when represented in a quadtree/octree data structure, that the invention of Gorell which refines the grid would encompass adding leafs to the structure. Therefore, as previously stated, it would have been obvious to combine the LGR workflow of Gorell with the usage of trees for LGR grid refining for application of a known technique for a predictable result from Gonzales for the benefit of providing flexibility and speed to the partition of Gorell to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 7:Gorell does not expressly recite but Gonzales makes further obvious The method of claim 6, further comprising updating the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a geometry of the larger tree. (page 6 par 2: “To illustrate the proposed methodology, Fig. 6 shows an example of quadtree decomposition of a 2D grid with front-like properties. Initially, the fine grid (sub figure Step 1) has 64 cells arranged in an 8×8 structure (2n×2n, where n=3). Following a top down construction, the first step is evaluating whether the grid can be represented by sub cells (children) merging 4×4 cells (2n×2n, where n=2) as shown in sub-figure Step 2; all sub cells passing the homogeneity test are merged, in this case, only the top-right corner. Cells failing the test are evaluated to be represented by sub-cells merging 2×2 cells (2n×2n, where n=1) as shown in subfigure Step 3; if the homogeneity test passes, cells would be merged. We repeat the process until the grid reaches the finest level of refinement (sub-figure Step 4).” Examiner note: Where the examiner understands merging adjacent leaf cells to be a modification of the tree based on the geometry of the larger tree. Where margining adjacent leaf cells means to shrink the grid refinement field as the tree and the grid are connected.
Whereas previously stated, it would have been obvious to combine the LGR workflow of Gorell with the usage of trees for LGR grid refining of Gonzales for application of a known technique for a predictable result for the benefit of providing flexibility and speed to the partition of Gorell to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Gorell makes obvious using the reservoir simulation system: (par 3: “a computer implemented reservoir simulation system”)
wherein the reservoir simulation simulates fluid percolation within the subterranean reservoir (“Further, the method includes determining a fine grid zone around the structure based upon a time period for flow simulation (Examiner note: fluid percolation) of the geologic formation and a geologic characteristic of the geologic formation in a local region adjacent the structure and applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone.” over a plurality of par 12: “Referring back to Fig. 2, at step 208, a time period for the simulation of the movement of pressure in the reservoir 300 is selected. For example, it may be desirable to predict flow of a formation over a one year period, or perhaps over an extended period, such as 20 years. In some instances, the time period selected depends on the predicted number of years a reservoir will be producing oil and/or gas. In the present embodiment, a time period is selected in days, however, in other embodiment, different time units may be utilized.”) Examiner note: Where this limitation is either understood as (“choosing among different time interval options”) or (“multiple different time intervals”), where the above passage makes both obvious, where the multiple different time intervals occurs where the method is repeated across multiple time periods. See also Gonzales where the simulation occurs across time intervals as well.
refining (fig, 2 “Apply coarse grid to reservoir” (202), …“determine fine grid zone around structure (210), fig 2 “Apply LGR to fine grid zone (212)”)
updating the reservoir simulation grid based, at least in part, on the (fig, 2 “Apply coarse grid to reservoir” (202), …“determine fine grid zone around structure (210), fig 2 “Apply LGR to fine grid zone (212)”)
“Further, the method includes determining a fine grid zone around the structure based upon a time period for flow simulation (Examiner note: fluid percolation) of the geologic formation and a geologic characteristic of the geologic formation in a local region adjacent the structure and applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone.”)
Gorell does not expressly recite updating the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a result of the reservoir simulation,
fluid production
updating
and performing an updated reservoir simulation using the updated reservoir simulation grid, wherein the updated reservoir simulation
Gonzales, however, makes obvious updating the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a result of the reservoir simulation, (page 8 par 1 re-gridding frequency “One key factor to consider is the computational expense associated with updating the grid. Creating an adaptive grid in each time step has proved to be impractical, and it provides only limited computational advantages over using a static fine grid model. Using the streamline time of-flight concept along with the CDE enables us to calculate the time it would take the injection front (Examiner note updated grid refinement field) to move a specified distance. To implement this procedure, the user defines the maximum movement of the injection front allowed before requiring a new grid. This approach reduces the computational requirement related to continuously updating the simulation grid while accounting for changes in flow velocity throughout the simulation run.”)
fluid production (page 10 par 3: “Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 display calculated oil production rate, gas injection rate, average pressure, and produced gas-oil ratio for three cases: 1) fine grid (40×40×8 with 12,800 cells), coarse grid (20×40×4 with 1,600 cells), and an adaptive grid (variable number of cells ranging from 746 to 6,318).”
PNG
media_image2.png
246
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
page 11 figure 10.
par 6: “To illustrate the proposed methodology, Fig. 6 shows an example of quadtree decomposition of a 2D grid with front-like properties” Examiner note: Where the updated grid referenced above is representing by the tree. Where this involves both refining and coarsening processes, see figure 9 below.
updating
PNG
media_image4.png
333
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Notice how grid block sizes change across the simulation. Where this is occurring in a later time interval.
Page 11 par 1: “Figure 10—Oil production rate and gas injection rate after 1,600 days for a homogeneous reservoir modeled using three grid descriptions: fine (40×40×8), coarse (20×20×4), and adaptive. Production shows a good match between results of the fine and the adaptive models, while exhibiting considerable difference when using the coarse grid.” Examiner note: Where the adaptive model is what is being referenced by the examiner. Where the adaptive model dynamically alters the tree / grid throughout the reservoir simulation.
As stated previously, Gorell and Gonzales are analogous arts to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling, specifically applying LGR. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Gorell and Gonzales.
The rational for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation present in the prior art. Gorell applies a workflow which applies LGR selectively to regions of interest for a simulation. Gonzales applies a workflow and methodology where the select regions of interest change throughout the simulation. In order to apply the invention of Gorell to a model where the region of interest changes, it would require either the user of Gorell to rerun the gridding process at each time step or to make all the grid cells of reference fine grid cells. Gonzales provides a solution, stating page 8 par 1: “Creating an adaptive grid in each time step has proved to be impractical, and it provides only limited computational advantages over using a static fine grid model. Using the streamline time-of-flight concept along with the CDE enables us to calculate the time it would take the injection front to move a specified distance. To implement this procedure, the user defines the maximum movement of the injection front allowed before requiring a new grid. This approach reduces the computational requirement related to continuously updating the simulation grid while accounting for changes in flow velocity throughout the simulation run.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the LGR workflow of Gorell to regions of interest with streamline concept of re-gridding when simulation requirements are met by Gonzles for the benefit of reducing computational requirements in simulation runs involving models with changing regions of interest to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 10:
Gorell does not expressly recite, but Gonzales makes obvious The method of claim 1, wherein forming a tree comprises forming an octree.
PNG
media_image5.png
315
854
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Whereas already stated, it would have been obvious to combine the LGR workflow of Gorell with the usage of trees for LGR grid refining for application of a known technique for a predictable result for the benefit of providing flexibility and speed to the partition of Gorell to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 11:Claim 11 is effectively similar to claim 1. Additionally, Gorell makes obvious the additional limitations of A system, comprising (Summary of the invention par 3: “According to a second aspect of the present invention, there is provided a computer-implemented reservoir simulation system, the system comprising:”). Therefore claim 11 is rejected under a similar rational to claim 1.
Claim 12:Claim 12 is effectively similar to claim 2, and is rejected under a similar rational to claims 2 and 11.
Claim 13:Gorell makes obvious The system of claim 11, further comprising a wellbore planning system configured to plan a planned wellbore trajectory based, at least in part on a result of the reservoir simulation.
(Detailed description par 23: “ The method also includes applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone to determine flow adjacent the structure, selecting a position and trajectory for a wellbore in the formation based on the determined flow. Further, the method includes preparing equipment to construct a portion of said wellbore and drilling a wellbore in accordance with the selected trajectory”
Claim 14:Gorell makes obvious The system of claim 13, further comprising a drilling system configured to drill a wellbore guided by planned wellbore trajectory.
(Detailed description par 23: “ The method also includes applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone to determine flow adjacent the structure, selecting a position and trajectory for a wellbore in the formation based on the determined flow. Further, the method includes preparing equipment to construct a portion of said wellbore and drilling a wellbore in accordance with the selected trajectory”)
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is effectively similar to claim 6, and is rejected under a similar rational to claims 6 and 11.
Claim 18:Claim 18 is effectively similar to claim 7, and is rejected under a similar rational to claims 7 and 11.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is effectively similar to claim 8, and is rejected under a similar rational to claims 8 and 11.
Claim 5 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorell_2019, Gonzales_2016, and Abacioglu_2013 (US 20130073268 A1)
Claim 5:The method of claim 1,
Gorell and Gonzales do not expressly recite wherein determining the grid refinement field is based, at least in part, on a spatial location of points in the field relative to perforation positions along the plurality of wellbore trajectories.
Abacioglu however makes obvious wherein determining the grid refinement field is based, at least in part, on a spatial location of points in the field relative to perforation positions along the plurality of wellbore trajectories. (par 58: “FIG. 3a illustrates examples of various hydraulic fractures, including some that are not readily comprehended by the orthogonal approach described above in connection with FIGS. 2a and 2b. The corresponding wellbores are not shown in FIG. 3a, for clarity; the fractures shown in FIG. 2c may emanate from either horizontal or vertical wellbores, as discussed above. Hydraulic fractures HF1, HF2 of FIG. 3a emanate in directions that are parallel to the axes of the grid of root grid cells RGC.sub.j,k. Fracture HF1 extends in the x-direction from a wellbore perforation in root grid cell RGC.sub.5,1, and fracture HF2 extends in the y-direction from a wellbore perforation in root grid cell RGC.sub.9,2 as shown. As such, the vicinity of fractures HF1, HF2 can be subdivided according
to the local grid refinement approach described above in a manner suitable for the simulation.”)
Gorell, Gonzales, and Abacioglu are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling, specifically with local grid refinement. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Gorell, Gonzales, and Abacioglu. The rational for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
The prior art of Gorell contains a base device which conducts LGR gridding near a fracture of interest. Abacioglu does the same thing, and mentions perforations when doing so. See par 6: “Hydraulic fracturing ("fracing" or "fracking") of the formation around a wellbore is a common technique for increasing production from these tight gas formations. Typical hydraulic fracturing involves the pumping of fluid, typically water and often some chemicals, under pressure through the wellbore and into the formation. The pressure of the fluid, along with the chemical action of any chemical additives present in the fluid, cause the surrounding formation to fracture, with the line of the fracture extending from the wellbore at each perforation.” Since both the prior arts of Gorell and Abacioglu conduct LGR near fractures in a wellbore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that applying the grid refinement field relative to the perforation points would be applicable to Gorell, and that it would have been obvious to do so given a reservoir with hydraulic fractures and perforations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to take the base device of LGR around hydraulic fractures of Gorell and apply the known technique of refinement field relative to perforation points of Abacioglu to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 16:Claim 16 is effectively similar to claim 5, and is rejected under a similar rational to claims 5 and 11.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorell_2019, Gonzales_2016, and Biterge_2019 (US 10386531 B2)
Claim 9:
The method of claim 8, further comprising:
Gorell makes obvious using the reservoir simulation system: (par 3: “a computer implemented reservoir simulation system”)
(fig, 2 “Apply coarse grid to reservoir” (202), …“determine fine grid zone around structure (210), fig 2 “Apply LGR to fine grid zone (212)”)
(fig, 2 “Apply coarse grid to reservoir” (202), …“determine fine grid zone around structure (210), fig 2 “Apply LGR to fine grid zone (212)”)
(“Further, the method includes determining a fine grid zone around the structure based upon a time period for flow simulation (Examiner note: fluid percolation) of the geologic formation and a geologic characteristic of the geologic formation in a local region adjacent the structure and applying a fine grid to the coarse grid blocks encompassed by the fine grid zone.”)
Gorell does not expressly recite correcting the grid refinement field based, at least in part, on a difference between a fluid production rate predicted by the reservoir simulation at a simulated production time and an observed fluid production rate,
correcting the tree
correcting the reservoir simulation grid based, at least in part, on the corrected tree
and performing a repeated reservoir simulation using the corrected reservoir simulation grid,
Gonzales, however, makes obvious page 8 par 1 re-gridding frequency “One key factor to consider is the computational expense associated with updating the grid. Creating an adaptive grid in each time step has proved to be impractical, and it provides only limited computational advantages over using a static fine grid model. Using the streamline time of-flight concept along with the CDE enables us to calculate the time it would take the injection front (Examiner note updated grid refinement field) to move a specified distance. To implement this procedure, the user defines the maximum movement of the injection front allowed before requiring a new grid. This approach reduces the computational requirement related to continuously updating the simulation grid while accounting for changes in flow velocity throughout the simulation run.”)fluid production rate (page 10 par 3: “Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 display calculated oil production rate, gas injection rate, average pressure, and produced gas-oil ratio for three cases: 1) fine grid (40×40×8 with 12,800 cells), coarse grid (20×40×4 with 1,600 cells), and an adaptive grid (variable number of cells ranging from 746 to 6,318).”
PNG
media_image2.png
246
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
page 11 figure 10.
(par 6: “To illustrate the proposed methodology, Fig. 6 shows an example of quadtree decomposition of a 2D grid with front-like properties” Examiner note: Where the updated grid referenced above is representing by the tree. Where this involves both refining and coarsening processes, see figure 9 below
and performing a repeated reservoir simulation using the
PNG
media_image4.png
333
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Page 11 par 1: “Figure 10—Oil production rate and gas injection rate after 1,600 days for a homogeneous reservoir modeled using three grid descriptions: fine (40×40×8), coarse (20×20×4), and adaptive. Production shows a good match between results of the fine and the adaptive models, while exhibiting considerable difference when using the coarse grid.” Examiner note: Where the adaptive model is what is being referenced by the examiner. Where the adaptive model dynamically alters the tree / grid throughout the reservoir simulation.
Gonzales does not expressly recite correcting [the grid based on a difference between simulated and observed values] predicted by the reservoir simulation at a simulated production time and an observed fluid production rate,
Biterge however makes obvious correcting [the grid based on a difference between simulated and observed values] predicted by the reservoir simulation at a simulated production time (par 28: “The accuracy check may involve history matching with the sector/LGR model, concentrating on matching the saturation profile observed with the time-lapse DeepLook-EM surveys. Upon completing the history match with sector/LGR model, if desired accuracy has been obtained then the grid properties may be scaled (e.g., upscaled) to update the FFM coarse grid, at Block 70, and the updated FFM may be run under history-match mode. FFM simulation with upscaled correction from LGR model may then be performed again. Otherwise, the sector model may be updated, at Block 71. The foregoing operations may be repeated until a reasonable FFM history match is achieved.”
and an observed fluid production rate, (par 21: “The predictability of the reservoir model hinges upon the level of integration to simulate the production and injection history of the reservoir. “)
Gorrey, Gonzales, and Biterge are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling, specifically using local grid refinement. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Gorrey, Gonzales, and Biterge. The rational for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art.
Gorrey and Gonzales provide a LGR workflow which refines a grid for accurate simulation results while saving computational efficiency. See for example Gorrey, detailed description par 7: “As illustrated in Fig. 4, the coarse grid blocks 310 of coarse grid 308 may have a width 312 that is too large to produce an accurate simulation of the fracture's pressure change” and background par 3: “Because fine grid scales are computationally undesirable over a large area, it is common in the industry to apply fine grids only to local areas of interest, such as around a fracture, and apply a coarser grid across the remainder of the reservoir. “ As understood by one ordinarily skilled in the art, “accurate” in the context of a simulation is understood to be the how close a simulations result is compared to reality. Gorry recognizes that a course grid may have a width too large to produce an accurate simulation. This provides one ordinarily skilled in the art to recognize that a finer section produces a more accurate result, and if the grid is too course to produce an accurate simulation that there would need to be a finer grid resolution, particularly in key areas as is the idea behind LGR. Biterge applies this idea, stating par 28: “, if desired accuracy has been obtained then the grid properties may be scaled (e.g., upscaled) to update the FFM coarse grid.”
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the LGR workflow of Gorrey and Gonzales with grid refinement as compared with measured data by Biterge for the benefit of getting an accurate simulation while balancing computational efficiency to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 20:Claim 20 is an effective duplicate of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under a similar rational to claims 9 and 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorell_2019, Gonzales_2016, and Laverne_2023 (“WO 2023130074 A1”)
Claim 15:Gorell and Gonzales do not expressly recite The system of claim 12, further comprising a pumping system, configured to pump a stimulation fluid into at least one well guided by a result of the reservoir simulation.
Laverne however makes obvious The system of claim 12, further comprising a pumping system, configured to pump a stimulation fluid into at least one well guided by a result of the reservoir simulation. (par 150: “ In such an example, the geologic environment can be characterized with respect to an ability to produce hydrocarbons from one or more reservoirs in the geologic environment, which can be via one or more wells drilled into the geologic environment that extend to one or more reservoirs. As explained, production can involve injection, which may include water flooding and/or one or more other injection techniques. As an example, stimulation may be utilized such as, for example, hydraulic fracturing where fluid can be injected along with proppant and other materials to generate fractures in a reservoir, which can enhance drainage of hydrocarbons from a reservoir.”)
Gorell, Gonzales and Laverne are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling, specifically local grid refinement. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Gorell, Gonzales and Laverne. The rationality for doing so would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior arts of Gorell, Gonzales and Laverne all discuss simulation and modeling techniques for reservoir grids. The prior arts all relate to each other, see par 164 of Laverne “Further, a hexcell approach can represent various types of structures and optionally include local grid refinement (e.g. octree, etc.). “One ordinarily skilled in the art recognizes that a pumping system, which pumps stimulation fluid into a well would function similarly in the prior arts listed, with the only difference being a lack of stated combination in Gorell or Gonzales which states that a pumping systems configured to pump stimulation fluid into a well guided by a result of the stimulation. A pump configured to pump stimulation fluid functions individually outside the different simulation prior arts as it occurs in the real life well system. Furthermore, one ordinarily skilled in art recognizes that a pump system configured to pump stimulation fluid is a well-known function in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the pump of Laverne with the simulation system of Gorell and Gonzales for the benefit of pumping a wellbore to receive hydrocarbons to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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