Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for analyzing rock cores of a subterranean formation, the method comprising: capturing a plurality of low resolution core images of the rock cores; selecting, by a computer processor and based on a pre-determined quality threshold for qualifying the plurality of low resolution core images, a plurality of qualified rock cores; capturing a plurality of high resolution core images of the plurality of qualified rock cores; generating, by the computer processor and based on a high resolution core image evaluation model, a ranking of the plurality of qualified rock cores; and analyzing, based at least on the ranking, the plurality of qualified rock cores to generate a core analysis result.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “generating, by the computer processor and based on a high resolution core image evaluation model, a ranking of the plurality of qualified rock cores; and analyzing, based at least on the ranking, the plurality of qualified rock cores to generate a core analysis result” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “selecting, by a computer processor and based on a pre-determined quality threshold for qualifying the plurality of low resolution core images, a plurality of qualified rock cores” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses a user manually selecting acceptable cores from low resolution images and using appropriate/known threshold (“observation/evaluation/judgement” steps). The former step, under the BRI, alternatively/additionally is also treated as a mental process step (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method for analyzing rock cores of a subterranean formation, the method comprising: capturing a plurality of low resolution core images of the rock cores; capturing a plurality of high resolution core images of the plurality of qualified rock cores; a computer processor;
In Claim 8: A core image analyzer for analyzing rock cores of a subterranean formation, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing instruction, the instructions, when executed by the processor, comprising functionality for: capturing a plurality of low resolution core images of the rock cores; capturing a plurality of high resolution core images of the plurality of qualified rock cores;
In Claim 15: A well system, comprising: a wellbore penetrating a subterranean formation; a well control system of the wellbore; and a core image analyzer comprising functionality for: capturing a plurality of low resolution core images of rock cores collected from the wellbore; capturing a plurality of high resolution core images of the plurality of qualified rock cores.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a processor (Claims 1 and 8), analyzer for analyzing rock cores of a subterranean formation, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing instruction (Claim 8) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite capturing a plurality of low resolution core images of the rock cores and capturing a plurality of high resolution core images of the plurality of qualified rock cores (all independent claims) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
The limitations that generically recite a wellbore of a well system (Claim 15) are not meaningful to indicate a practical application because they correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity that only tangentially relate to judicial exception (“merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim”, MPEP 2106.06(g)).
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Walls, Shpalensky, Nie, Leseur, Duke, and Bridges).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
However, such additional elements in Claims 2, 9, and 16 (training step), Claims 4, 11, and 18 (recited performing field operation), Claims 7, 14, and 19 (types of core analysis results), and Claims 12 and 19 (coring from a plurality of geographical locations) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiaobo Nie et al. (US 20210132026), hereinafter ‘Nie’ in view of Nicolas Leseur (US 20140236486), hereinafter ‘Leseur’.
With regards Claim 1, Nie discloses
A method for analyzing rock cores of a subterranean formation (The disclosure generally relates to the field of investigating or analyzing materials by determining their chemical or physical properties (G01N) and to determining capillary pressure and relative permeability of core samples, and thereby of a subterranean formation [0001]), the method comprising:
capturing a plurality of low resolution core images of the rock cores (core samples are taken out from the field and analyzed to determine the petrophysical properties of the subterranean formation [0002]; The sample analysis system 100 includes a CT scanner 116 that produces image data 107 (“image”) for the internal structure of the core sample 105 at different resolutions (e.g., cross sectional image). The image can include “coarse” image data from micro-computerized tomography (CT) imaging at a first resolution .... The images can include various degrees of coarse… images obtained at various resolutions [0020]);
capturing a plurality of high resolution core images of the plurality of qualified rock cores (The image can include … “fine” image data acquired with a higher resolution of micro-CT imaging or nano-CT acquisition. The images can include various degrees of … fine images obtained at various resolutions [0020]; The higher resolution image may be acquired with a higher resolution of micro-CT imaging or nano-CT acquisition [0028]);
Noe also discloses that a higher resolution image need not meet a certain threshold resolution a threshold resolution [0028] that implies that a low resolution core images are subject to qualifying the plurality of low resolution core images based on the threshold resolution, emphasis added.
Nie also discloses a computer processor (processor 901, Fig.9).
However, Nie does not explicitly disclose selecting, by a computer processor and based on a pre-determined quality threshold for qualifying the plurality of low resolution core images, a plurality of qualified rock cores.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nie to select, by a computer processor and based on a pre-determined quality threshold for qualifying the plurality of low resolution core images, a plurality of qualified rock cores to be used in core analysis along with high resolution rock cores to increase a population of qualified samples for more representative analysis as known in the art (for example, in Leseur, below).
Nie additionally discloses a high resolution core image evaluation model (the model evaluator acquires a higher resolution image for the determined portion of the selected Darcy region. The higher resolution image may be acquired with a higher resolution of micro-CT imaging or nano-CT acquisition [0028]).
Nie also does not explicitly disclose generating, by the computer processor and based on a high resolution core image evaluation model, a ranking of the plurality of qualified rock cores; and analyzing, based at least on the ranking, the plurality of qualified rock cores to generate a core analysis result.
Leseur discloses generating, by the computer processor, ranking of the plurality of qualified rock cores; and analyzing, based at least on the ranking, the plurality of qualified rock cores to generate a core analysis result (The workflow can also include the steps of ranking the plurality of core samples based upon the determined distances, determining a heuristically optimal number K (or NN) of nearest neighbors responsive to a sensitivity analysis or selecting a sufficiently large number of K nearest neighbors (e.g., 30), and calculating a distance weighted average permeability at the query point based upon the permeability of the identified number of K nearest neighbors [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nie in view of Leseur to generate, by the computer processor and based on a high resolution core image evaluation model, a ranking of the plurality of qualified rock cores to create a database of most important (highest ranked) samples and correspondingly analyze, based at least on the ranking, the plurality of most qualified rock cores to generate an accurate core analysis result (Various embodiments of the present invention have several advantages. For example, at least in a global sense provides increased accuracy, high speed of execution, and enables the user to test several configurations. Advantageously, one or more embodiments are based on the use and improvement of the K Nearest Neighbor (KNN) concept as the core engine for permeability prediction, and can be employed without the need to employ other machine learning predictive algorithms, such as Neural Network, Leseur [0134]) using as many core samples as possible (On the other hand it is important to include as many core samples as possible so as to reproduce the reservoir heterogeneity and prevent smoothing artifacts, Leseur [0053]).
With regards to Claim 3, Nie in view of Leseur discloses generating the ranking based on the high resolution core image evaluation model as discussed above in Claim 2.
Nie is silent wherein generating the ranking comprises a plurality of importance scores of the plurality of qualified rock cores, wherein the ranking is generated based on plurality of importance scores.
Leseur discloses generating the ranking comprises generating a plurality of importance scores of the plurality of qualified rock cores, wherein the ranking is generated based on plurality of importance scores (The deterministic permeability prediction workflow can include the step of determining a distance between a query point or location interval and the core sample location of each of the plurality of core samples in the reference database, with each respective distance based upon a weighted difference between a well log property value of one of the reservoir properties at the query point or location interval and a sampled core property value of the one of the plurality of reservoir properties of one of the plurality of core samples, being calculated for each separate one of the plurality of reservoir properties. The workflow can also include the steps of ranking the plurality of core samples based upon the determined distances, determining a heuristically optimal number K (or NN) of nearest neighbors responsive to a sensitivity analysis or selecting a sufficiently large number of K nearest neighbors (e.g., 30), and calculating a distance weighted average permeability at the query point based upon the permeability of the identified number of K nearest neighbors [0022]), wherein the “distances” are interpreted as “important scores”, emphasis added; Once the distances from the query point to all the observed sampled data points from the reference database have been calculated, a sorting process is applied to find the measured data that is closest to the query point based on the distance d.sub.s calculated in Eq. 5. Measured data are ranked from the 1.sup.st to the K.sup.th [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nie in view of Leseur to generate the ranking includes generating a plurality of importance scores of the plurality of qualified rock cores, wherein the ranking is generated based on plurality of importance scores (“distances”) (ranking the plurality of core samples based upon the determined distances, Leseur [0021]) to indicate importance of core samples.
With regards to Claim 4, Nie additionally discloses that is known in the art to perform, based on the core analysis result, a field operation of the subterranean formation (core analysis provides important information useful to determine the optimal values for various parameters during formation drilling and hydrocarbon production, such as when to drill, what target depth to set fracturing, which wells to inject with fluids, etc. [0002]).
However, Nie is silent on this feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nie in view of Leseur to perform field operation based on core analysis as known in the art.
With regards to Claim 7, Nie additionally discloses the core analysis result comprises one or more of porosity, permeability, fluid saturation, and grain density of the rock cores (the model evaluator performs operations analogous to blocks 623, 625, 627 to obtain capillary pressure and the relative permeability of the core sample [0060]).
With regards to Claims 8 and 15, Nie in view of Leseur discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
In addition, Nie discloses a core image analyzer for analyzing rock cores of a subterranean formation, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing instruction (Fig.9) and a well system, comprising: a wellbore penetrating a subterranean formation; a well control system of the wellbore; and a core image analyze (Fig.1, [0022, 0032]).
With regards to Claims 10 and 17, Nie in view of Leseur discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 3 and Claims 8 and 15, respectively.
With regards to Claims 11 and 18, Nie in view of Leseur discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 4 and Claims 8 and 15, respectively.
With regards to Claim 14, Nie in view of Leseur discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 7 and Claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie in view of Leseur, and further in view of Paul Duke et al. (US 20210190664), hereinafter ‘Duke’.
With regards to Claim 2, Nie is silent on training, based on a machine learning algorithm during a training phase prior to generating the ranking, the high resolution core image evaluation model.
Duke discloses training, based on a machine learning algorithm during a training phase the high resolution core image evaluation model (training a model that refines estimated parameter values within core images is disclosed, Abstract; Embodiments described herein disclose a method for acquiring low-resolution/high-resolution image pairs to serve as the source for a model training set of images [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nie in view of Leseur, and Duke to train, based on a machine learning algorithm during a training phase, the high resolution core image evaluation model to improve quality of training (the high-resolution image will be used as the model target, Duke [0041]) while performing the training prior to generating the ranking to use maximum amount of qualified core samples to improve accuracy.
With regards to Claims 9 and 16, Nie in view of Leseur and Duke discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 2 and Claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie in view of Leseur, and further in view of Joel Walls et al. (US 20130259190), hereinafter ‘Walls’.
With regards to Claim 5, Nie in view of Leseur discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 4.
However, Nie is silent on coring and collecting the rock cores from a plurality of geographical locations in the subterranean formation; and selecting, from the plurality of geographical locations and based on the core analysis result, a target location, wherein the core analysis result comprises geological characteristics of the plurality of geographical locations, and wherein the field operation is performed at the target location.
Walls discloses coring and collecting the rock cores from a plurality of geographical locations in the subterranean formation (multiple well cores are typically taken, analyzed, and rock properties are interpolated in between geographic locations of the cores [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nie in view of Leseur, and Walls to select, from the plurality of geographical locations and based on the core analysis result, a target location, wherein the core analysis result comprises geological characteristics of the plurality of geographical locations (identify sub-sections of interest within the original sample and then estimate properties of the porous media, Walls, Abstract; select the best subsample from a larger sample that will characterize the whole rock or will be representative of rock facies containing hydrocarbons, Walls [0013]; Step 57, Fig.2) and correspondingly perform the field operation at the target location (of interest, Walls, above).
With regards to Claims 12 and 19, Nie in view of Leseur and Walls discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 5 and Claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie in view of Leseur, in view of Duke, and further in view of Matthew J. Bridges et al. (US 10621435), hereinafter ‘Bridges’.
With regards to Claim 6, Nie in view of Leseur discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
Nie in view of Leseur discloses selecting, by a computer processor and based on a pre-determined quality threshold for qualifying the plurality of low resolution core images, a plurality of qualified rock cores as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Nie is silent on generating, by the computer processor and based on a low resolution core image evaluation model, a plurality of quality scores corresponding to the plurality of low resolution core images; and selecting, by the computer processor and from the plurality of low resolution core images, a plurality of qualified low resolution core images, wherein each qualified low resolution core image has a corresponding quality score exceeding the pre-determined quality threshold, wherein the plurality of qualified rock cores are selected corresponding to the plurality of qualified low resolution core images.
Duke discloses generating, by the computer processor and based on a low resolution core image evaluation model, a plurality of quality scores corresponding to the plurality of low resolution core images (FIG. 6 depicts a parameterized method for aligning 2 images or 2 image stacks and scoring how well they are aligned given a set of registration parameters ... [0033], Fig.6; Once the images are aligned, image/volume pairs can be extracted from the aligned low-resolution/high-resolution images 34 to create a training set for model training 35 of the super resolution model [0037]; Fig.7) and rock cores are selected corresponding to the plurality of qualified low resolution core images [0005, 0007, 0029].
Bridges discloses selecting, by the computer processor and from the plurality of images, a plurality of qualified images (the controller determines the expected image quality of the image pixel data to be below a preset minimum quality threshold, the image pixel data are not provided to the image processing apparatus. If the controller determines the expected image quality of the image pixel data to be equal to or above a preset minimum quality threshold, the image pixel data are provided to the image processing apparatus, Col.1, Lines 35-44), wherein each qualified image has a corresponding quality score exceeding the pre-determined quality threshold (If one or more images have a quality score that is greater than a second threshold (which is higher than the first threshold), the camera application 114 can select the most recent image that has a quality score that is greater than the second threshold, Col.10, Lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nie in view of Leseur, Duke, and Bridges to generate based on a low resolution core image evaluation model, a plurality of quality scores corresponding to the plurality of low resolution core images in order to select qualified low resolution core images with a corresponding quality score exceeding the pre-determined quality threshold as an objective parameter for the selection of acceptable/qualified low-resolution images and then select corresponding to the images rock cores for analysis similar to analyzing qualified rock cores selected based on high-resolution evaluating model as discussed in Claim 1.
With regards to Claims 13 and 20, Nie in view of Leseur, Duke, and Bridges discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 6 and Claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuri Shpalensky et al. (US 20190259136) discloses generating a fine super resolution image from a low resolution image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863