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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 13 September 2023 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2024 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106. (Note: the claim limitations below considered to fall within an abstract idea are highlighted in bold font; the remaining features are "additional elements.")
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, and fall within a statutory category.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a system, and fall within a statutory category.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a system, and fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One
Step 2A, Prong One of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The claims recite:
1. A method to perform a field operation of an unconventional reservoir, comprising:
performing a diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) of a formation zone in the unconventional reservoir to generate a DFIT dataset, wherein each entry of the DFIT dataset comprises a decline pressure and a time interval that are measured prior to any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT;
selecting, from a collection of the time interval of each entry of the DFIT dataset, a plurality of time intervals;
analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals to generate tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure in the tabulated entries; and
determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure.
2. The method of claim 1,
wherein the formation zone is one of a plurality of formation zones in the unconventional reservoir,
the method further comprising:
generating, according to the true reservoir permeability in each of the plurality of formation zones, a ranking of the plurality of formation zones;
selecting, from the plurality of formation zones and based on the ranking, a target formation zone having the true reservoir permeability meeting a pre-determined criterion; and
performing, based at least on the true reservoir permeability of the target formation zone, the field operation of the unconventional reservoir.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a nonlinear correlation between the estimated permeability and the estimated pressure in the tabulated entries,
wherein extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure is based on the nonlinear correlation, and
wherein analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals is based on using Horner analysis to generate the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure.
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining, based on a closure pressure of the DFIT dataset and using a minimum horizontal stress equation, a pore pressure of the target formation zone,
wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the pore pressure of the formation zone of the target formation zone.
5. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining, based on an extrapolated trend line in the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure, a static condition permeability of the target formation zone,
wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the static condition permeability of the target formation zone.
6. The method of claim 1,
wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is less than one nano-Darcy,
wherein no radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone prior to one week from a beginning of the DFIT, and
wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is determined within one week from the beginning of the DFIT.
7. The method of claim 2, wherein the field operation comprises a hydraulic fracturing operation or an enhanced oil recovery process.
8. A pore pressure and permeability analysis system to facilitate a field operation of an unconventional reservoir, comprising:
a computer processor; and
memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for:
performing a diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) of a formation zone in the unconventional reservoir to generate a DFIT dataset, wherein each entry of the DFIT dataset comprises a decline pressure and a time interval that are measured prior to any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT;
selecting, from a collection of the time interval of each entry of the DFIT dataset, a plurality of time intervals;
analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals to generate tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure; and
determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure.
9. The pore pressure and permeability analysis system of claim 8,
wherein the formation zone is one of a plurality of formation zones in the unconventional reservoir,
the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for:
generating, according to the true reservoir permeability in each of the plurality of formation zones, a ranking of the plurality of formation zones;
selecting, from the plurality of formation zones and based on the ranking, a target formation zone having the true reservoir permeability meeting a pre-determined criterion; and
performing, based at least on the true reservoir permeability of the target formation zone, the field operation of the unconventional reservoir.
10. The pore pressure and permeability analysis system of claim 8,
the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for: generating a nonlinear correlation between the estimated permeability and the estimated pressure in the tabulated entries,
wherein extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure is based on the nonlinear correlation, and
wherein analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals is based on using Horner analysis to generate the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure.
11. The pore pressure and permeability analysis system of claim 9,
the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for: determining, based on a closure pressure of the DFIT dataset and using a minimum horizontal stress equation, a pore pressure of the target formation zone,
wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the pore pressure of the formation zone of the target formation zone.
12. The pore pressure and permeability analysis system of claim 9,
the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for: determining, based on an extrapolated trend line in the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure, a static condition permeability of the target formation zone,
wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the static condition permeability of the target formation zone.
13. The pore pressure and permeability analysis system of claim 8,
wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is less than one nano-Darcy,
wherein no radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone prior to one week from a beginning of the DFIT, and
wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is determined within one week from the beginning of the DFIT.
14. The pore pressure and permeability analysis system of claim 9, wherein the field operation comprises a hydraulic fracturing operation or an enhanced oil recovery process.
15. A system comprising:
a well control system for performing a field operation of an unconventional reservoir; and
a pore pressure and permeability analysis system comprising a computer processor and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for:
performing a diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) of a formation zone in the unconventional reservoir to generate a DFIT dataset, wherein each entry of the DFIT dataset comprises a decline pressure and a time interval that are measured prior to any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT;
selecting, from a collection of the time interval of each entry of the DFIT dataset, a plurality of time intervals;
analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals to generate tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure; and
determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure.
16. The system of claim 15,
wherein the formation zone is one of a plurality of formation zones in the unconventional reservoir,
the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for:
generating, according to the true reservoir permeability in each of the plurality of formation zones, a ranking of the plurality of formation zones;
selecting, from the plurality of formation zones and based on the ranking, a target formation zone having the true reservoir permeability meeting a pre-determined criterion; and
performing, based at least on the true reservoir permeability of the target formation zone, the field operation of the unconventional reservoir.
17. The system of claim 15, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for:
generating a nonlinear correlation between the estimated permeability and the estimated pressure in the tabulated entries,
wherein extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure is based on the nonlinear correlation, and
wherein analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals is based on using Horner analysis to generate the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure.
18. The system of claim 16, the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for:
determining, based on a closure pressure of the DFIT dataset and using a minimum horizontal stress equation, a pore pressure of the target formation zone,
wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the pore pressure of the formation zone of the target formation zone.
19. The system of claim 16, the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for:
determining, based on an extrapolated trend line in the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure, a static condition permeability of the target formation zone,
wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the static condition permeability of the target formation zone.
20. The system of claim 16,
wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is less than one nano-Darcy,
wherein no radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone prior to one week from a beginning of the DFIT,
wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is determined within one week from the beginning of the DFIT, and
wherein the field operation comprises a hydraulic fracturing operation or an enhanced oil recovery process.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "selecting, from a collection of the time interval of each entry of the DFIT dataset, a plurality of time intervals; analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals to generate tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure in the tabulated entries; and determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure" is an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts/mental processes and could be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
The highlighted portion of claim 2 further defines the abstract idea of claim 1 by adding further data manipulation steps (generating a ranking of zones and selecting a zone). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 1 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 3 further defines the extrapolating and analyzing steps in claim 1, and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 4 further defines the abstract idea of claim 2 by adding a further determining step (determining a pore pressure). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 1-2 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 5 further defines the abstract idea of claim 2 by adding a further determining step (determining a static condition permeability). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 1-2 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 6 further merely limits the abstract idea claim 1 to a particular time frame, and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 8 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "selecting, from a collection of the time interval of each entry of the DFIT dataset, a plurality of time intervals; analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals to generate tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure; and determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure" is an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts/mental processes and could be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
The highlighted portion of claim 9 further defines the abstract idea of claim 8 by adding further data manipulation steps (generating a ranking of zones and selecting a zone). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 8 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 10 further defines the extrapolating and analyzing steps in claim 8, and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 11 further defines the abstract idea of claim 9 by adding a further determining step (determining a pore pressure). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 8-9 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 12 further defines the abstract idea of claim 9 by adding a further determining step (determining a static condition permeability). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 8-9 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 13 further merely limits the abstract idea claim 9 to a particular time frame, and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 15 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "selecting, from a collection of the time interval of each entry of the DFIT dataset, a plurality of time intervals; analyzing the DFIT dataset at the plurality of time intervals to generate tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure; and determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure" is an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts/mental processes and could be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
The highlighted portion of claim 16 further defines the abstract idea of claim 15 by adding further data manipulation steps (generating a ranking of zones and selecting a zone). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 15 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 17 further defines the extrapolating and analyzing steps in claim 15, and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 18 further defines the abstract idea of claim 16 by adding a further determining step (determining a pore pressure). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 15-16 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 19 further defines the abstract idea of claim 16 by adding a further determining step (determining a static condition permeability). This subject matter also falls within the abstract idea judicial exception, and does not make the abstract idea of claim 15-16 any less abstract.
The highlighted portion of claim 20 further merely limits the abstract idea claim 15 to a particular time frame, and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional element of "performing a diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) of a formation zone in the unconventional reservoir to generate a DFIT dataset, wherein each entry of the DFIT dataset comprises a decline pressure and a time interval that are measured prior to any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT." This relates to mere data gathering according to an established industry injection test process, here recited at a high level of generality, and is a necessary precursor to all implementations of the abstract idea. It also does not relate to any process or step after implementation of the abstract idea, or to how to the abstract idea is applied in practice. This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the abstract idea judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, this element merely links the abstract idea to a field of use (formation analysis/injection testing).
Claims 8 and 15 also include the elements of a computer processor and memory storing instructions that are executed by the computer processor (the instructions corresponding to the identified judicial exception). In the case of claim 17, the computer and memory make up a pore pressure and permeability analysis system. However, this computer and memory are generic computer elements recited at a high level and merely provide the platform on which the identified judicial exception is implemented. These computer processor and memory elements do not constitute a particular machine, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 further include an element relating to performing or facilitating a field operation of an unconventional reservoir. In claims 1 and 8 this limitation is only in the preamble, and in claim 17 this is tied to a well control system loosely stated as being for performing the field operation. However, the recited field operation is not tied to the identified judicial exception in any way, nor are any specifics given for the field operation. At best, this too merely serves to link the abstract idea to a field of use, and does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and these claims are found to be directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the additional elements of "wherein the formation zone is one of a plurality of formation zones in the unconventional reservoir," and "performing, based at least on the true reservoir permeability of the target formation zone, the field operation of the unconventional reservoir." The first of these merely links the abstract idea to a particular environment. The second of these is the first limitation that uses the identified judicial exception for some purpose, but it does not place any meaningful limit on how the judicial exception is applied or make clear what is improved. This limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome based on the identified judicial exception. This limitation thus represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and these claims are found to be directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite no additional elements.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the addition element "wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the pore pressure of the formation zone of the target formation zone." This element also uses the identified judicial exception for some purpose, but it does not place any meaningful limit on how the judicial exception is applied or make clear what is improved. This limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome based on the identified judicial exception. This limitation thus represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, and does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the addition element "wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the static condition permeability of the target formation zone." This element also uses the identified judicial exception for some purpose, but it does not place any meaningful limit on how the judicial exception is applied or make clear what is improved. This limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome based on the identified judicial exception. This limitation thus represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. This limitation thus represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, and does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the additional elements of "wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is less than one nano-Darcy," and "wherein no radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone prior to one week from a beginning of the DFIT." However, these elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular environment. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and these claims are found to be directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the additional element "wherein the field operation comprises a hydraulic fracturing operation or an enhanced oil recovery process." This additional element is the first to specify what field operation is performed based on the true reservoir permeability determined in the respective independent claims. The specific field operation action is tied to the identified judicial exception in a way that does is not merely using or applying the exception, and is seen to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. These claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 require further analysis under Step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional element of "performing a diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT) of a formation zone in the unconventional reservoir to generate a DFIT dataset, wherein each entry of the DFIT dataset comprises a decline pressure and a time interval that are measured prior to any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT." This relates to mere data gathering according to an established industry injection test process, i.e., not one invented by the applicant, as evidenced the same testing being described in col. 12 ll. 26-30 of US 10,975,669. At best, this element merely links the abstract idea to a field of use (formation analysis/injection testing), and does not add an inventive concept to the claim.
Claims 8 and 15 also include the elements of a computer processor and memory storing instructions that are executed by the computer processor (the instructions corresponding to the identified judicial exception). In the case of claim 17, the computer and memory make up a pore pressure and permeability analysis system. However, this recitation of generic computer elements to perform limitations, or to serve as an object on which the judicial exception is implemented, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. This does not add an inventive concept to the claim.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 further include an element relating to performing or facilitating a field operation of an unconventional reservoir. In claims 1 and 8 this limitation is only in the preamble, and in claim 17 this is tied to a well control system loosely stated as being for performing the field operation. However, the recited field operation is not tied to the identified judicial exception in any way, nor are any specifics given for the field operation. At best, this too merely serves to link the abstract idea to a field of use, and does not add an inventive concept to the claim.
These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claims 1, 8 and 15 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the additional elements of "wherein the formation zone is one of a plurality of formation zones in the unconventional reservoir," and "performing, based at least on the true reservoir permeability of the target formation zone, the field operation of the unconventional reservoir." The first of these merely links the abstract idea to a particular environment having plural formation zones. The second of these is the first limitation that uses the identified judicial exception for some purpose, but it does not place any meaningful limit on how the judicial exception is applied or make clear what is improved. Generally applying a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claims 2, 9, and 16 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite no additional elements.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the addition element "wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the pore pressure of the formation zone of the target formation zone." This element also uses the identified judicial exception for some purpose, but it does not place any meaningful limit on how the judicial exception is applied or make clear what is improved. Generally applying a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claims 4, 11, and 18 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the addition element "wherein performing the field operation of the unconventional reservoir is further based at least on the static condition permeability of the target formation zone." This element also uses the identified judicial exception for some purpose, but it does not place any meaningful limit on how the judicial exception is applied or make clear what is improved. Generally applying a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claims 5, 12, and 19 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
Claims 6 and 13 recite the additional elements of "wherein the true reservoir permeability in the formation zone is less than one nano-Darcy," and "wherein no radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone prior to one week from a beginning of the DFIT." However, these elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular environment.
These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claims 6 and 13 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17, in the preamble, recites "The system of claim 15, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for: …". It is not clear what is executed by the computer processor that further comprises said functionality. For the purpose of examination, claim 17 is read as if reciting "The system of claim 15, the instructions, when executed by the computer processor further comprising functionality for: …".
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 7, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure
in combination with all other elements in claim 7.
With regards to claim 14, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure
in combination with all other elements in claim 14.
With regards to claim 20, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
determining, prior to said any radial flow regime occurs in the formation zone during the DFIT, a true reservoir permeability in the formation zone by extrapolating the tabulated entries of estimated permeability versus estimated pressure
in combination with all other elements in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,945,224 to Proett et al. discloses a related technique for determining a reservoir parameter of a subterranean formation.
US 9,163,499 to Adams et al. discloses a related technique for measuring the pressure of tight gas reservoirs using information obtain from continuous injection prior to hydraulic fracture stimulation.
US 9,790,788 to Moos et al. discloses a related technique for estimating flow properties (such as permeability) and flow property changes as a result of stimulation pressure.
US 4,353,249 to Lagus et al. discloses general known techniques for determining or inferring formation characteristics such as permeability, porosity, fracture extent, saturation, etc., based on monitored flow conditions.
US 7,054,751 to Craig discloses a method for evaluating physical parameters of a reservoir using pressure transient fracture injection/falloff test analysis.
US 9,556,729 to Lamei et al. discloses the use of DFIT to determine information regarding the permeability of a subterranean formation.
US 9,045,969 to Waters et al. discloses techniques relating to the use of the use of a downhole tool to determine formation properties in low permeability zones of an oil and/or gas well.
US 11,608,740 to Moos et al. discloses the use of injection and step-rate tests to variously determine properties/parameters in a well.
King ("3.2.2: Porosity from Well Logs," PNG 301: Introduction to Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, from archive.org, captured 27 March 2023) discloses known techniques using Horner analysis to determine formation permeability, and that permeability and porosity are known to be correlated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858