DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on October 4, 2023.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2023 and 02/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show label ‘329’ in Fig. 3B as described in the specification (see [0035]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0026]: Language “Both producer wells 102 and injector wells may extend …” should read “Both producer wells 102 and injector wells 104 may extend …” in order to correct minor informalities.
[0029]: Language “Wellbore planning system 110 may automatically locate and provides well trajectories for a number of producer wells 102 and a number of injector wells 104” should read “Wellbore planning system 110 may automatically locate and provide well trajectories for a number of producer wells 102 and a number of injector wells 104” in order to correct minor informalities.
[0033]: Language “Following follow diagram 200, a boundary polygon representing the circumference of a hydrocarbon zone is received (block 204)” should read “Following flow diagram 200, a boundary polygon representing the circumference of a hydrocarbon zone is received (block 204)” in order to correct minor informalities.
[0037]: Language should read “Turning to FIGs. 3C-3F series of four top view, two-dimensional diagrams 302, 303, 304, 305 depict a process of shifting respective copies of the second series of points a distance 331 in a respective direction along four axes 391, 393, 395, 397. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 302 of FIG. 3C, a first copy 333 of second series of points 329 (the first copy of the second series of points is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 331a along axis 391. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 303 of FIG. 3D, a second copy 335 of second series of points 329 (the second copy of the second series of points is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 33lb along axis 395. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 304 of FIG. [[3D]]3E, a third copy [[335]]337 of second series of points 329 (the third copy of the second series of points is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 331c along axis [[395]]393. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 305 of FIG. [[3E]]3F, a fourth copy [[337]]339 of second series of points 329 (the fourth copy of the second series of points is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 331d along axis [[393]]397
[0039]: Language “Boundary zone 341 includes: a region 381 along the bottom and left side that includes primarily points from second copy 335, a region 383 along the top side that includes primarily points from fourth copy 339, a region 385 along the right side that includes primarily points from first copy 331, and a region 387 along the bottom and right side that includes primarily points from third copy 337” should read “Boundary zone 341 includes: a region 381 along the bottom and left side that includes primarily points from second copy 335, a region 383 along the top side that includes primarily points from fourth copy 339, a region 385 along the right side that includes primarily points from first copy [[331]]333, and a region 387 along the bottom and right side that includes primarily points from third copy 337” in accordance with the details of Fig. 3C (i.e., first copy is labeled ‘333’).
[0045]: Language “Following follow diagram 400, a boundary polygon representing the circumference of a hydrocarbon zone is received (block 404)” should read “Following flow diagram 400, a boundary polygon representing the circumference of a hydrocarbon zone is received (block 404)” in order to correct minor informalities.
[0049]: Language should read “Turning to FIGs. 5C-5F a series of four top view, two-dimensional diagrams 502, 503, 504, 505 depict a process of shifting respective copies of the second series of points a distance 531 in a respective direction along four axes 591, 593, 595, 597. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 502 of FIG. 5C, a first copy 533 of second series of points 529 (the first copy of the second series of points is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 531a along axis 591. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 503 of FIG. 5D, a second copy 535 of second series of points 529 (the second copy of the second series of points is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 53lb along axis 595. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 504 of FIG. [[5D]]5E, a third copy [[535]]537 of second series of points 529 (the third copy of the second series of points is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 531c along axis [[595]]593. As shown in top view, two-dimensional diagram 505 of FIG. [[5E]]5F, a fourth copy [[537]]539 of second series of points 529 (the fourth copy of the second series of points being is represented using a solid line for clarity) is shifted a distance 531d along axis [[593]]597
[0051]: Language “This reduction process may be done using and intersection function … Boundary zone 541 includes: a region 581 along the bottom and left side that includes primarily points from second copy 535, a region 583 along the top side that includes primarily points from fourth copy 539, a region 585 along the right side that includes primarily points from first copy 531, and a region 587 along the bottom and right side that includes primarily points from third copy 537” should read “This reduction process may be done using [[and]]an intersection function … Boundary zone 541 includes: a region 581 along the bottom and left side that includes primarily points from second copy 535, a region 583 along the top side that includes primarily points from fourth copy 539, a region 585 along the right side that includes primarily points from first copy [[531]]533, and a region 587 along the bottom and right side that includes primarily points from third copy 537” in order to correct minor informalities and in accordance with the details of Fig. 5C (i.e., first copy is labeled ‘533’).
[0054]: Language “Once insufficient points remain in the boundary zone (block 232) …” should read “Once insufficient points remain in the boundary zone (block [[232]]434) …” in accordance with the details of Fig. 4.
[0055]: Language “Turning to FIG. 5I, a graphical representation 508 shows a boundary zone 541 within second series of points 529, and a boundary zone 551 within boundary zone 551” should read “Turning to FIG. 5I, a graphical representation 508 shows a boundary zone 541 within second series of points 529, and a boundary zone 551 within boundary zone [[551]]541” in accordance with the details of Fig. 5I (i.e., boundary zone 551 is within boundary zone 541).
[0062]: Language “Computer system 800 can receive requests over network 802 from a client application (for example, executing on another computer system (not shown) and responding to the received requests by processing the said requests in an appropriate software application” should read “Computer system 800 can receive requests over network 802 from a client application (for example, executing on another computer system (not shown)) and respond to the received requests by processing the said requests in an appropriate software application” in order to correct for minor informalities (e.g., close parenthesis).
[0063]: Language “In some implementations, any or all of the components of the computer system 800, both hardware or software (or a combination of hardware and software), may interface with each other or interface 806 (or a combination of both) over system bus 804 using an application programming interface (API) 808 or a service layer 810 (or a combination of API 808 and service layer 810” should read “In some implementations, any or all of the components of the computer system 800, both hardware or software (or a combination of hardware and software), may interface with each other or interface 806 (or a combination of both) over system bus 804 using an application programming interface (API) 808 or a service layer 810 (or a combination of API 808 and service layer 810)” in order to correct for minor informalities (e.g., close parenthesis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “A system, comprising:” should read “A system[[,]] comprising:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “drilling, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of injector wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of injector wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances” should read “drilling, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of injector wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of injector wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at the equal circumferential distances” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “injecting, using the pumping system, a volume of water into each the plurality of drilled injector wellbores” should read “injecting, using the pumping system, [[a]]the volume of water into each the plurality of .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “drilling, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of producer wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of producer wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances” should read “drilling, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of producer wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of producer wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at the equal circumferential distances” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “extracting, using the pumping system, a volume of hydrocarbon from each the plurality of drilled producer wellbores” should read “extracting, using the pumping system, a volume of hydrocarbon from each the plurality of .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the boundary zone, comprises:” should read “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the boundary zone[[,]] comprises:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Claim language “determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first, second, third, and fourth shifted-polygons and the base-polygon” should read “determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first shifted-polygon, the second shifted-polygon, the third shifted-polygon, [[and]]the fourth shifted-polygon and the base-polygon” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 5, wherein the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and the fourth distance [[all]] have an equal magnitude” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 1the contact points” in order to correct for minor informalities and provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “A system, the system comprising:” should read “A system
Claim language “a wellbore planning system, configured to:” should read “a wellbore planning system[[,]] configured to:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Claim language “a wellbore drilling system, configured to drill a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory” should read “a wellbore drilling system[[,]] configured to drill a wellbore guided by the
Claim language “a pumping system, configured to inject a volume of water into the drilled wellbore” should read “a pumping system[[,]] configured to inject a volume of water into the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “A system, comprising a wellbore planning system, configured to:” should read “A system[[,]] comprising a wellbore planning system[[,]] configured to:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The system of claim 12[[,]] further comprising: a wellbore drilling system[[,]] configured to drill a wellbore guided by the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “the wellbore drilling system is further configured to drill a plurality of wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances” should read “the wellbore drilling system is further configured to drill a plurality of wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at the equal circumferential distances” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “the pumping system is further configured to inject a volume of water into each the plurality of drilled wellbores” should read “the pumping system is further configured to inject [[a]]the volume of water into each the plurality of .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The system of claim 12, wherein the wellbore planning system includes a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium coupled to the processor” in order to clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The system of claim 12, wherein determining the boundary zone, comprises:” should read “The system of claim 12, wherein determining the boundary zone[[,]] comprises:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Claim language “determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first, second, third, and fourth shifted-polygons and the base-polygon” should read “determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first shifted-polygon, the second shifted-polygon, the third shifted-polygon, [[and]] the fourth shifted-polygon and the base-polygon” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The system of claim 16, wherein the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and the fourth distance [[all]] have an equal magnitude” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The system of claim 12, wherein obtaining the hydrocarbon-water contact further comprises interpolating refinement points between the projection of the location of the contact points” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “determining a boundary zone, wherein the boundary zone extends away from a boundary of the base-polygon” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to transform data (e.g., manipulate the base-polygon data to obtain additional data indicating an outer/inner zone away from the base-polygon; see specification at [0034]-[0039], [0046]-[0051] and Figs. 3A-H, 5A-H). The limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations/judgments/observations and/or applying mathematical concepts to transform data (e.g., transform the base-polygon into a boundary zone).
the limitation “planning a wellbore trajectory penetrating the boundary zone” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to obtain information (i.e., a wellbore trajectory; see specification at [0042], [0044], [0053], [0057] and Fig. 3I). Except for the recitation of the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result (i.e., a wellbore trajectory penetrating the boundary zone).
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“receiving a hydrocarbon-water contact, wherein the hydrocarbon-water contact comprises a base-polygon formed by projecting a location of contact points between a hydrocarbon zone and a water zone on an upper surface of a reservoir onto a horizontal plane” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated, see specification at [0004], [0032]-[0034], [0045]-[0046], [0057] and Figs. 1B, 3A and 5A; see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., wellbore trajectory planning; see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
“a wellbore planning system” adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0031]; see also MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., wellbore trajectory planning), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
recite extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated) which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process … Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering … Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
append generic computer components (i.e., a wellbore planning system) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (e.g., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “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 provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 12 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 5-10 and 16-20), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic computer components and/or field of use (Claim 15), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 2-4, 11 and 13-14 were evaluated for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the test for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the examiner submits that claim 2 recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test as indicated above with respect to claim 1.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, the claim recites the additional elements recited in claim 1 and
“drilling, using a wellbore drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory; and injecting, using a pumping system, a volume of water into the drilled wellbore”, which, when considering the claim as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see specification at [0001]; see also MPEP 2106.05(c)) and/or reflecting an improvement to other technology or technical field (see specification at [0001]; see also MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, when considered as a whole, is eligible at Prong Two of the Revised Step 2A (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Revised Step 2A, see also MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Similarly, claims 3-4, 11 and 13-14 are directed to patent eligible subject matter as explained above with regards to claim 2 and/or by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 12, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ali (ALI, Basharat et al., “Assisted Field Development Planning Through Well Placement Automation”; Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference; Paper Number: IPTC-19715-MS; pp. 1-17; January 13, 2020, IDS reference), hereinafter ‘Ali’ .
Regarding claim 1.
Ali discloses:
A method (Abstract: a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs is presented), comprising:
receiving a hydrocarbon-water contact, wherein the hydrocarbon-water contact comprises a base-polygon formed by projecting a location of contact points between a hydrocarbon zone and a water zone on an upper surface of a reservoir onto a horizontal plane (p. 3, section “Defining the Target Zone”: target zone is defined using four surfaces, which include a top limiting surface and a gas-oil contact surface (the union of these two being the effective top limiting surface and corresponding the entry points to the target region – hydrocarbon zone), and a bottom limiting surface and a free water level surface (the union of these two being the effective bottom limiting surface and corresponding to the exit points to the target region – water zone), with the area of interest representing a polygon on an upper surface of a reservoir on a horizontal plane (p. 4, section “Validation of Trajectory Points”; p. 7, par. 1 and Figs. 7 and 10-14 showing an oil-water contact (OWC) polygon on a horizontal plane of the reservoir; see also p. 2, section “Methodology and Workflow”)); and
using a wellbore planning system (Abstract: a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs is presented, which implies the use of a computer (wellbore planning system)):
determining a boundary zone, wherein the boundary zone extends away from a boundary of the base-polygon (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed away from the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir) while producers are placed away from the polygon edge following contour lines within the polygon), and
planning a wellbore trajectory penetrating the boundary zone (p. 8, par. 2: well path is created by connecting points to form the trajectory (see also p. 2-3, sections “Calculation of Wellhead and Exit Points Locations” and “Well Trajectory Points Sampling”)).
Regarding claim 7.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the wellbore trajectory comprises a horizontal portion within the boundary zone (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, horizontal injectors are placed away from the polygon with a provided space while producers are placed following contour lines within the polygon (see Fig. 7; see also Abstract; p. 2, section “Introduction”; p. 4, section “Applications”; and p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing horizontal wells and horizontal oil producers)).
Regarding claim 8.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 7 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the horizontal portion runs parallel to the hydrocarbon-water contact (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, horizontal injectors are placed parallel the polygon with a provided space while producers are placed parallel the polygon following contour lines within the polygon (see Fig. 7; see also Abstract; p. 2, section “Introduction”; p. 4, section “Applications”; and p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing horizontal wells and horizontal oil producers)).
Regarding claim 10.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the hydrocarbon-water contact comprises an isobath (p. 3, section “Defining the Target Zone”: target zone is defined using four surfaces, which include a top limiting surface and a gas-oil contact surface (the union of these two being the effective top limiting surface and corresponding the entry points to the target region – hydrocarbon zone), and a bottom limiting surface and a free water level surface (the union of these two being the effective bottom limiting surface and corresponding to the exit points to the target region – water zone), with the area of interest representing a polygon on an upper surface of a reservoir on a horizontal plane (p. 4, section “Validation of Trajectory Points”; p. 7, par. 1 and Figs. 7 and 10-14 showing an oil-water contact (OWC) polygon on a horizontal plane of the reservoir; see also p. 2, section “Methodology and Workflow”)).
Regarding claim 12.
Ali discloses:
A system, comprising a wellbore planning system (Abstract: a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs is presented, which implies the use of a computer (wellbore planning system)), configured to:
obtain a hydrocarbon-water contact, wherein the hydrocarbon-water contact comprises a base-polygon formed by projecting a location of contact points between a hydrocarbon zone and a water zone on an upper surface of a reservoir onto a horizontal plane (p. 3, section “Defining the Target Zone”: target zone is defined using four surfaces, which include a top limiting surface and a gas-oil contact surface (the union of these two being the effective top limiting surface and corresponding the entry points to the target region – hydrocarbon zone), and a bottom limiting surface and a free water level surface (the union of these two being the effective bottom limiting surface and corresponding to the exit points to the target region – water zone), with the area of interest representing a polygon on an upper surface of a reservoir on a horizontal plane (p. 4, section “Validation of Trajectory Points”; p. 7, par. 1 and Figs. 7 and 10-14 showing an oil-water contact (OWC) polygon on a horizontal plane of the reservoir; see also p. 2, section “Methodology and Workflow”));
determine a boundary zone, wherein the boundary zone extends outwards from a boundary of the base-polygon into the water zone (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed outside the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir)); and
plan a wellbore trajectory penetrating the boundary zone (p. 8, par. 2: well path is created by connecting points to form the trajectory (see also p. 2-3, sections “Calculation of Wellhead and Exit Points Locations” and “Well Trajectory Points Sampling”)).
Regarding claim 15.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 12 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the wellbore planning system includes a processor and a computer readable medium coupled to the processor (Abstract: a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs is presented, which implies the use of a computer (wellbore planning system) having memory and processor capabilities coupled to each other).
Regarding claim 18.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 12 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the wellbore trajectory comprises a horizontal portion within the boundary zone (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, horizontal injectors are placed away from the polygon with a provided space while producers are placed following contour lines within the polygon (see Fig. 7; see also Abstract; p. 2, section “Introduction”; p. 4, section “Applications”; and p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing horizontal wells and horizontal oil producers)).
Regarding claim 19.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 18 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the horizontal portion runs parallel to the hydrocarbon-water contact (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, horizontal injectors are placed parallel the polygon with a provided space while producers are placed parallel the polygon following contour lines within the polygon (see Fig. 7; see also Abstract; p. 2, section “Introduction”; p. 4, section “Applications”; and p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing horizontal wells and horizontal oil producers)).
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 2-6, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali.
Regarding claim 2.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
drilling, using a wellbore drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory; and injecting, using a pumping system, a volume of water into the drilled wellbore.
However, Ali further teaches:
“This paper highlights a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in the optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs … The development plans were evaluated through numerical simulation and well performance was analyzed. The analysis indicated considerable improvement in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery … This workflow was evaluated on a conceptual tight heterogeneous reservoir with several development strategies, including star-shaped platforms with peripheral water injection … The results achieved using this workflow demonstrate a unique opportunity in creating a variety of well designs automatically to target huge and complex reservoirs under a secondary drive production mechanism. This workflow is not only valuable in early phase field development planning, but also applicable in designing multiple sidetracks and reentry wells as part of the infill drilling program in mature fields” (Abstract: placement of oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs was developed for analysis for potential application; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the producer-injector placement analysis was performed in order to determine optimum planning strategies for actual implementation (e.g., using a drilling system for drilling the planned trajectories and a pumping system for water injection)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to drill, using a wellbore drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory; and to inject, using a pumping system, a volume of water into the drilled wellbore, in order to implement the optimum placement strategies developed by Ali that result in improvements in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery in actual real world applications.
Regarding claim 3.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 2 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the boundary zone extends outwards from the boundary of the base-polygon into the water zone (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed outside the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir)),
the method further comprising:
planning, using the wellbore planning system, a plurality of wellbore trajectories along the boundary zone, wherein the plurality of wellbore trajectories are distributed at equal circumferential distances (p. 7, par. 1; p. 8, par. 2: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed outside the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir), with the corresponding well paths being created by connecting points to form the trajectory (see also p. 2-3, sections “Calculation of Wellhead and Exit Points Locations” and “Well Trajectory Points Sampling”)).
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
drilling, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of injector wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of injector wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances; and
injecting, using the pumping system, a volume of water into each the plurality of drilled injector wellbores.
However, Ali further teaches:
“This paper highlights a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in the optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs … The development plans were evaluated through numerical simulation and well performance was analyzed. The analysis indicated considerable improvement in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery … This workflow was evaluated on a conceptual tight heterogeneous reservoir with several development strategies, including star-shaped platforms with peripheral water injection … The results achieved using this workflow demonstrate a unique opportunity in creating a variety of well designs automatically to target huge and complex reservoirs under a secondary drive production mechanism. This workflow is not only valuable in early phase field development planning, but also applicable in designing multiple sidetracks and reentry wells as part of the infill drilling program in mature fields” (Abstract: placement of oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs was developed for analysis for potential application; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the producer-injector placement analysis was performed in order to determine optimum planning strategies for actual implementation (e.g., using the wellbore drilling system for drilling the injector wells using the planned trajectories and the pumping system for water injection)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to drill, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of injector wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of injector wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances; and to inject, using the pumping system, a volume of water into each the plurality of drilled injector wellbores, in order to implement the optimum placement strategies developed by Ali that result in improvements in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery in actual real world applications.
Regarding claim 4.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 2 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the boundary zone extends inwards from the boundary of the base-polygon into the hydrocarbon zone (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, producers are placed inside the polygon edge following contour lines within the polygon (see Fig. 7)),
the method further comprising:
planning, using the wellbore planning system, a plurality of wellbore trajectories along the boundary zone, wherein the plurality of wellbore trajectories are distributed at equal circumferential distances (p. 7, par. 1; p. 8, par. 2: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, producers are placed inside the polygon edge following contour lines within the polygon (see Fig. 7), with the corresponding well paths being created by connecting points to form the trajectory (see also p. 2-3, sections “Calculation of Wellhead and Exit Points Locations” and “Well Trajectory Points Sampling”)).
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
drilling, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of producer wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of producer wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances; and
extracting, using the pumping system, a volume of hydrocarbon from each the plurality of drilled producer wellbores.
However, Ali further teaches:
“This paper highlights a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in the optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs … The development plans were evaluated through numerical simulation and well performance was analyzed. The analysis indicated considerable improvement in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery … This workflow was evaluated on a conceptual tight heterogeneous reservoir with several development strategies, including star-shaped platforms with peripheral water injection … The results achieved using this workflow demonstrate a unique opportunity in creating a variety of well designs automatically to target huge and complex reservoirs under a secondary drive production mechanism. This workflow is not only valuable in early phase field development planning, but also applicable in designing multiple sidetracks and reentry wells as part of the infill drilling program in mature fields” (Abstract: placement of oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs was developed for analysis for potential application; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the producer-injector placement analysis was performed in order to determine optimum planning strategies for actual implementation (e.g., using the wellbore drilling system for drilling the producer wells using the planned trajectories and the pumping system for hydrocarbon extraction)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to drill, using the wellbore drilling system, a plurality of producer wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of producer wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances; and to extract, using the pumping system, a volume of hydrocarbon from each the plurality of drilled producer wellbores, in order to implement the optimum placement strategies developed by Ali that result in improvements in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery in actual real world applications.
Regarding claim 5.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Ali does not disclose:
determining the boundary zone, comprises:
forming a set of two orthogonal axes comprising a first axis and a second axis;
forming a first shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a first distance in a positive direction along the first axis;
forming a second shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a second distance along a negative direction along the first axis;
forming a third shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a third distance in a positive direction along the second axis;
forming a fourth shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a fourth distance along a negative direction along the second axis; and
determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first, second, third, and fourth shifted-polygons and the base-polygon.
However, Ali further teaches:
“Figure 7 an example of peripheral water injection well placed around a polygon which defines the edges of the field. The workflow provides the capability to place the peripheral injectors away from the polygon with a provided spacing. As can be observed in Figure 7, the horizontal injectors shown in blue color follow the path of the polygon and are placed with certain length and spacing. Any type or shape of well can be used for placing these peripheral flooding injectors. In addition, the workflow enables placing following contour lines as shown in Figure 7. The producers in Figure 7 are shown in green color and they follow the shape of the contour lines. Similar to the other types of well placements, the contour” (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed away from the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir) while producers are placed away from the polygon edge following contour lines within the polygon; the examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that scaling of the polygon, which can be achieved by translation (shifting) of the shape in different directions, can be performed in a peripheral injection waterflood model to create contour lines for injectors and producers placement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to implement the determination of the boundary zone by: forming a set of two orthogonal axes comprising a first axis and a second axis; forming a first shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a first distance in a positive direction along the first axis; forming a second shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a second distance along a negative direction along the first axis; forming a third shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a third distance in a positive direction along the second axis; forming a fourth shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a fourth distance along a negative direction along the second axis; and determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first, second, third, and fourth shifted-polygons and the base-polygon, in order to facilitate the determination of potential positions of wells in a peripheral injection waterflood model using well-known mathematical techniques without compromising accuracy.
Regarding claim 6.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 5 as described above.
Ali does not disclose:
the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and fourth distance all have an equal magnitude.
However, Ali further teaches:
“Figure 7 an example of peripheral water injection well placed around a polygon which defines the edges of the field. The workflow provides the capability to place the peripheral injectors away from the polygon with a provided spacing. As can be observed in Figure 7, the horizontal injectors shown in blue color follow the path of the polygon and are placed with certain length and spacing. Any type or shape of well can be used for placing these peripheral flooding injectors. In addition, the workflow enables placing following contour lines as shown in Figure 7. The producers in Figure 7 are shown in green color and they follow the shape of the contour lines. Similar to the other types of well placements, the contour” (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed away from the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir) while producers are placed away from the polygon edge following contour lines within the polygon; the examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that scaling of the polygon, which can be achieved by translation (shifting) of the shape in different directions by a similar magnitude, can be performed in a peripheral injection waterflood model to create contour lines for injectors and producers placement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to implement the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and fourth distance having an equal magnitude, in order to facilitate the determination of potential positions of wells in a peripheral injection waterflood model using well-known mathematical techniques without compromising accuracy.
Regarding claim 9.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
interpolating refinement points between the projection of the location of contact points.
However, Ali further teaches:
“The workflow provides smoothing capabilities for wells trajectories where wells and laterals can be created with different resolutions. A well path is created using points and these points are connected to form the trajectory of the well. The number of points for the well path can be controlled and is chosen depending on the need. Adding more points to the path gives better resolution and a more smoothed well trajectory. The more a well is smoothed, the more curvature is imposed in the well trajectories” (p. 8, par. 2: well path is created by connecting points and adding more points for better resolution (analogous to interpolation); examiner notes that interpolation techniques can be equally applied to defining the area of interest (the polygon) in order to improve resolution during analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to interpolate refinement points between the projection of the location of contact points, in order to provide better resolution during the analysis.
Regarding claim 11.
Ali discloses:
A system, the system comprising: a wellbore planning system (Abstract: a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs is presented, which implies the use of a computer (wellbore planning system), configured to:
receive a hydrocarbon-water contact, wherein the hydrocarbon-water contact comprises a base-polygon formed by projecting a location of contact points between a hydrocarbon zone and a water zone on an upper surface of a reservoir onto a horizontal plane (p. 3, section “Defining the Target Zone”: target zone is defined using four surfaces, which include a top limiting surface and a gas-oil contact surface (the union of these two being the effective top limiting surface and corresponding the entry points to the target region – hydrocarbon zone), and a bottom limiting surface and a free water level surface (the union of these two being the effective bottom limiting surface and corresponding to the exit points to the target region – water zone), with the area of interest representing a polygon on an upper surface of a reservoir on a horizontal plane (p. 4, section “Validation of Trajectory Points”; p. 7, par. 1 and Figs. 7 and 10-14 showing an oil-water contact (OWC) polygon on a horizontal plane of the reservoir; see also p. 2, section “Methodology and Workflow”));
determine a boundary zone, wherein the boundary zone extends outwards from a boundary of the base-polygon into the water zone (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed outside the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir));
plan a wellbore trajectory penetrating the boundary zone (p. 8, par. 2: well path is created by connecting points to form the trajectory (see also p. 2-3, sections “Calculation of Wellhead and Exit Points Locations” and “Well Trajectory Points Sampling”)).
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
the system comprising: a wellbore drilling system, configured to drill a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory; and a pumping system, configured to inject a volume of water into the drilled wellbore.
However, Ali further teaches:
“This paper highlights a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in the optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs … The development plans were evaluated through numerical simulation and well performance was analyzed. The analysis indicated considerable improvement in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery … This workflow was evaluated on a conceptual tight heterogeneous reservoir with several development strategies, including star-shaped platforms with peripheral water injection … The results achieved using this workflow demonstrate a unique opportunity in creating a variety of well designs automatically to target huge and complex reservoirs under a secondary drive production mechanism. This workflow is not only valuable in early phase field development planning, but also applicable in designing multiple sidetracks and reentry wells as part of the infill drilling program in mature fields” (Abstract: placement of oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs was developed for analysis for potential application; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the producer-injector placement analysis was performed in order to determine optimum planning strategies for actual implementation (e.g., using a wellbore drilling system for drilling the planned trajectories and a pumping system for water injection)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to incorporate the system comprising: a wellbore drilling system, configured to drill a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory; and a pumping system, configured to inject a volume of water into the drilled wellbore, in order to implement the optimum placement strategies developed by Ali that result in improvements in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery in actual real world applications.
Regarding claim 13.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 12 as described above.
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
a wellbore drilling system, configured to drill a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory; and
a pumping system, configured to inject a volume of water into the drilled wellbore.
However, Ali further teaches:
“This paper highlights a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in the optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs … The development plans were evaluated through numerical simulation and well performance was analyzed. The analysis indicated considerable improvement in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery … This workflow was evaluated on a conceptual tight heterogeneous reservoir with several development strategies, including star-shaped platforms with peripheral water injection … The results achieved using this workflow demonstrate a unique opportunity in creating a variety of well designs automatically to target huge and complex reservoirs under a secondary drive production mechanism. This workflow is not only valuable in early phase field development planning, but also applicable in designing multiple sidetracks and reentry wells as part of the infill drilling program in mature fields” (Abstract: placement of oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs was developed for analysis for potential application; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the producer-injector placement analysis was performed in order to determine optimum planning strategies for actual implementation (e.g., using a wellbore drilling system for drilling the planned trajectories and a pumping system for water injection)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to incorporate the system comprising: a wellbore drilling system, configured to drill a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory; and a pumping system, configured to inject a volume of water into the drilled wellbore, in order to implement the optimum placement strategies developed by Ali that result in improvements in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery in actual real world applications.
Regarding claim 14.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 13 as described above.
Ali further discloses:
the wellbore planning system is further configured to plan a plurality of wellbore trajectories penetrating the boundary zone, wherein the plurality of wellbore trajectories are distributed at equal circumferential distances (p. 7, par. 1; p. 8, par. 2: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed outside the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir), with the corresponding well paths being created by connecting points to form the trajectory (see also p. 2-3, sections “Calculation of Wellhead and Exit Points Locations” and “Well Trajectory Points Sampling”)).
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
the wellbore drilling system is further configured to drill a plurality of wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances; and
the pumping system is further configured to inject a volume of water into each the plurality of drilled wellbores.
However, Ali further teaches:
“This paper highlights a systematic and robust computer assisted reservoir simulation workflow to place oil producers and water injectors in the optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs … The development plans were evaluated through numerical simulation and well performance was analyzed. The analysis indicated considerable improvement in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery … This workflow was evaluated on a conceptual tight heterogeneous reservoir with several development strategies, including star-shaped platforms with peripheral water injection … The results achieved using this workflow demonstrate a unique opportunity in creating a variety of well designs automatically to target huge and complex reservoirs under a secondary drive production mechanism. This workflow is not only valuable in early phase field development planning, but also applicable in designing multiple sidetracks and reentry wells as part of the infill drilling program in mature fields” (Abstract: placement of oil producers and water injectors in optimum areas of hydrocarbon reservoirs was developed for analysis for potential application; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the producer-injector placement analysis was performed in order to determine optimum planning strategies for actual implementation (e.g., using the wellbore drilling system for drilling the injector wells using the planned trajectories and the pumping system for water injection)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to configure the wellbore drilling system to drill a plurality of wellbores, wherein each of the plurality of wellbores is guided by one of the plurality of wellbore trajectories distributed at equal circumferential distances; and to configure the pumping system to inject a volume of water into each the plurality of drilled wellbores, in order to implement the optimum placement strategies developed by Ali that result in improvements in field cumulative oil production and ultimate recovery in actual real world applications.
Regarding claim 16.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 12 as described above.
Ali does not disclose:
determining the boundary zone, comprises:
forming a set of two orthogonal axes comprising a first axis and a second axis;
forming a first shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a first distance in a positive direction along the first axis;
forming a second shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a second distance along a negative direction along the first axis;
forming a third shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a third distance in a positive direction along the second axis;
forming a fourth shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a fourth distance along a negative direction along the second axis; and
determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first, second, third, and fourth shifted-polygons and the base-polygon.
However, Ali further teaches:
“Figure 7 an example of peripheral water injection well placed around a polygon which defines the edges of the field. The workflow provides the capability to place the peripheral injectors away from the polygon with a provided spacing. As can be observed in Figure 7, the horizontal injectors shown in blue color follow the path of the polygon and are placed with certain length and spacing. Any type or shape of well can be used for placing these peripheral flooding injectors. In addition, the workflow enables placing following contour lines as shown in Figure 7. The producers in Figure 7 are shown in green color and they follow the shape of the contour lines. Similar to the other types of well placements, the contour” (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed away from the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir) while producers are placed away from the polygon edge following contour lines within the polygon; the examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that scaling of the polygon, which can be achieved by translation (shifting) of the shape in different directions, can be performed in a peripheral injection waterflood model to create contour lines for injectors and producers placement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to implement determining the boundary zone by: forming a set of two orthogonal axes comprising a first axis and a second axis; forming a first shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a first distance in a positive direction along the first axis; forming a second shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a second distance along a negative direction along the first axis; forming a third shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a third distance in a positive direction along the second axis; forming a fourth shifted-polygon by shifting the base-polygon by a fourth distance along a negative direction along the second axis; and determining the boundary zone based on a complement of a union of the first, second, third, and fourth shifted-polygons and the base-polygon, in order to facilitate the determination of potential positions of wells in a peripheral injection waterflood model using well-known mathematical techniques without compromising accuracy.
Regarding claim 17.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 16 as described above.
Ali does not disclose:
the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and fourth distance all have an equal magnitude.
However, Ali further teaches:
“Figure 7 an example of peripheral water injection well placed around a polygon which defines the edges of the field. The workflow provides the capability to place the peripheral injectors away from the polygon with a provided spacing. As can be observed in Figure 7, the horizontal injectors shown in blue color follow the path of the polygon and are placed with certain length and spacing. Any type or shape of well can be used for placing these peripheral flooding injectors. In addition, the workflow enables placing following contour lines as shown in Figure 7. The producers in Figure 7 are shown in green color and they follow the shape of the contour lines. Similar to the other types of well placements, the contour” (p. 7, par. 1: in a peripheral injection waterflood model, peripheral injectors are placed away from the polygon edge with a provided space (see Fig. 7; see also p. 12-13, sections “Field Development Plan 5” and “Field Development Plan 6” describing water injectors being placed at 2km from the periphery of the reservoir) while producers are placed away from the polygon edge following contour lines within the polygon; the examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that scaling of the polygon, which can be achieved by translation (shifting) of the shape in different directions by a similar magnitude, can be performed in a peripheral injection waterflood model to create contour lines for injectors and producers placement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to implement the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and fourth distance having an equal magnitude, in order to facilitate the determination of potential positions of wells in a peripheral injection waterflood model using well-known mathematical techniques without compromising accuracy.
Regarding claim 20.
Ali discloses all the features of claim 12 as described above.
Ali does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining the hydrocarbon-water contact further comprises interpolating refinement points between the projection of the location of contact points.
However, Ali further teaches:
“The workflow provides smoothing capabilities for wells trajectories where wells and laterals can be created with different resolutions. A well path is created using points and these points are connected to form the trajectory of the well. The number of points for the well path can be controlled and is chosen depending on the need. Adding more points to the path gives better resolution and a more smoothed well trajectory. The more a well is smoothed, the more curvature is imposed in the well trajectories” (p. 8, par. 2: well path is created by connecting points and adding more points for better resolution (analogous to interpolation); examiner notes that interpolation techniques can be equally applied to defining the area of interest (the polygon) in order to improve resolution during analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali to obtain the hydrocarbon-water contact by interpolating refinement points between the projection of the location of contact points, in order to provide better resolution during the analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ding; Xiang Yang et al., US 20200340353 A1, RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODELING WITH WELL TRAJECTORY AT TRUE POSITIONS IN GRID SIMULATION MODELS
Reference discloses generation of well trajectories using grid models.
Embid Droz; Sonia Mariette et al., US 20140365183 A1¸ PRODUCTION STRATEGY PLANS ASSESMENT METHOD, SYSTEM AND PROGRAM PRODUCT
Reference discloses generating well location plans for ranking potential plans for decisions.
Fung; Larry Siu-Kuen et al., US 20140236559 A1, SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIA FOR MODELING COMPLEX WELLBORES IN FIELD-SCALE RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Reference discloses using grid model builders to develop well trajectories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857