DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/06/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 01/07/2026.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 states
“…
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a matrix impulse forms through the matrix component and a fluid impulse forms through the fluid component,
wherein
the matrix and fluid impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse
…”
Claim(s) 13 states
“…
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that an oil impulse forms through an oil component and a water impulse forms through a water component,
wherein
the oil and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse
…”
Claim(s) 17 states
“…
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a saturated mineral matrix impulse forms through the saturated mineral matrix component and a water impulse forms through the water component,
wherein
the saturated mineral matrix and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse
…”
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 13, 17, it is unclear to a POSITA if the underlined limitation(s) are real-world actions/functions being performed on a real-world structure/medium performed by real world instruments or merely mathematical steps of a mathematical algorithm, in light of the specification. The defined scope of the claim is unclear.
If the former, it is unclear what necessary structural component(s) is/are performing these limitations. Further, if the former, see the 112(a) below.
If the latter, amending the claim(s) to make it clear and concise that these limitation(s) is/are mathematical steps would cure the 112(b) rejection(s).
For examination purposes, Examiner will assume these limitations are mere mathematical steps within a mathematical algorithm.
Claim(s) 2-12, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected as for being dependent on the above rejected parent claim(s).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 states
“…
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a matrix impulse forms through the matrix component and a fluid impulse forms through the fluid component,
wherein
the matrix and fluid impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse
…”
Claim(s) 13 states
“…
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that an oil impulse forms through an oil component and a water impulse forms through a water component,
wherein
the oil and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse
…”
Claim(s) 17 states
“…
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a saturated mineral matrix impulse forms through the saturated mineral matrix component and a water impulse forms through the water component,
wherein
the saturated mineral matrix and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse
…”
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 13, 17, the specification, as originally filed, fails to provide the necessary structural components to enable a POSITA to perform the underlined process functions (see 112(b) above).
For examination purposes, Examiner will assume these limitations are mere mathematical steps within a mathematical algorithm being performed by generic computer structure being used as a tool.
Claim(s) 2-12, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected as for being dependent on the above rejected parent claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a matrix impulse forms through the matrix component and a fluid impulse forms through the fluid component,
wherein
the matrix and fluid impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse;
performing derivative analysis of the convolved impulse to derive thermal transient measurements;
developing a fluid thermal model using the thermal transient measurements;
integrating the fluid thermal model with one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters to create an integrated model;
determining one or more reservoir parameters from the integrated model;
and
directing one or more field operations within a reservoir formation based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 13 recites
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that an oil impulse forms through an oil component and a water impulse forms through a water component,
wherein
the oil and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse;
performing derivative analysis of the convolved impulse to derive thermal transient measurements;
developing a fluid thermal model using the thermal transient measurements;
integrating the fluid thermal model with one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters to create an integrated model;
determining one or more reservoir parameters from the integrated model;
and
directing one or more field operations within a reservoir formation based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 17 recites
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a saturated mineral matrix impulse forms through the saturated mineral matrix component and a water impulse forms through the water component,
wherein
the saturated mineral matrix and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse;
performing derivative analysis of the convolved impulse to derive thermal transient measurements;
developing a fluid thermal model using the thermal transient measurements;
integrating the fluid thermal model with one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters to create an integrated model; determining one or more reservoir parameters from the integrated model;
and
directing one or more field operations within a reservoir formation based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, 17, Claim(s) 2-12, 14-16, 18, 20 recite(s)
the heat impulse is a square signal.
the convolved impulse includes
velocity and temperature changes associated with the heat impulse.
the matrix component includes
a mineral matrix.
the fluid component includes
water, a gas, and/or a liquid hydrocarbon.
integrating the fluid thermal model includes
a laboratory measurement of a formation sample obtained from downhole.
wherein
thermal transient measurements are obtained at 0% fluid saturation and 100% fluid saturation to provide end points within the laboratory measurement.
wherein
performing derivative analysis includes
validating the convolved impulse using laboratory studies.
wherein
the integrated model includes
a semi-supervised machine learning model, neural network, and/or an iterative solver.
wherein
the one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters include
borehole logs, core analysis, lithology measurements, porosity measurements, mud parameters, resistivity measurements, nuclear measurements, and/or sonic measurements.
wherein
the one or more reservoir parameters include
lithology, porosity, thermal conductivity, thermal capacity, salinity, and/or saturation values.
wherein
the one or more field operations include
well location selection, well depth selection, and/or produced water management.
wherein
developing the fluid thermal model is reservoir specific
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding 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 MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. a semi-supervised machine learning model, neural network, and/or an iterative solver);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. directing one or more field operations based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters; wherein the one or more field operations include well location selection, well depth selection, and/or produced water management).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DURU ET AL. (Duru, Obinna O., and Roland N. Horne. "Modeling reservoir temperature transients and reservoir-parameter estimation constrained to the model." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 13.06 (2010): 873-883.) (hereinafter “DURU”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, DURU teaches modeling reservoir temperature transients and reservoir-parameter estimation constrained to the model and the BRI of:
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a matrix impulse forms through the matrix component and a fluid impulse forms through the fluid component (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882),
wherein
the matrix and fluid impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
performing derivative analysis of the convolved impulse to derive thermal transient measurements (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
developing a fluid thermal model using the thermal transient measurements (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
integrating the fluid thermal model with one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters to create an integrated model (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
determining one or more reservoir parameters from the integrated model (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
and
directing one or more field operations based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 13, DURU teaches modeling reservoir temperature transients and reservoir-parameter estimation constrained to the model and the BRI of:
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that an oil impulse forms through an oil component and a water impulse forms through a water component (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882),
wherein
the oil and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
performing derivative analysis of the convolved impulse to derive thermal transient measurements (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
developing a fluid thermal model using the thermal transient measurements (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
integrating the fluid thermal model with one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters to create an integrated model (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
determining one or more reservoir parameters from the integrated model (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
and
directing one or more field operations within a reservoir formation based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 17, DURU teaches modeling reservoir temperature transients and reservoir-parameter estimation constrained to the model and the BRI of:
directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a saturated mineral matrix impulse forms through the saturated mineral matrix component and a water impulse forms through the water component (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882) ,
wherein
the saturated mineral matrix and water impulses convolve at a measurement location to provide a convolved impulse (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
performing derivative analysis of the convolved impulse to derive thermal transient measurements (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
developing a fluid thermal model using the thermal transient measurements (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
integrating the fluid thermal model with one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters to create an integrated model; determining one or more reservoir parameters from the integrated model (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882);
and
directing one or more field operations within a reservoir formation based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the convolved impulse includes
velocity and temperature changes associated with the heat impulse (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the matrix component includes
a mineral matrix (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the fluid component includes
water, a gas, and/or a liquid hydrocarbon (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
integrating the fluid thermal model includes
a laboratory measurement of a formation sample obtained from downhole (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
thermal transient measurements are obtained at 0% fluid saturation and 100% fluid saturation to provide end points within the laboratory measurement (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, 14, 18, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
performing derivative analysis includes
validating the convolved impulse using laboratory studies (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more downhole logs and/or input parameters include
borehole logs, core analysis, lithology measurements, porosity measurements, mud parameters, resistivity measurements, nuclear measurements, and/or sonic measurements (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more reservoir parameters include
lithology, porosity, thermal conductivity, thermal capacity, salinity, and/or saturation values (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
With respect to Claim(s) 15, 19, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DURU further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
developing the fluid thermal model is reservoir specific (See, e.g., Page(s) 873-882).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art of the parent claim(s) in view of FRENKEL (US 7236886 B2).
With respect to Claim(s) 2, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However, DURU is lacking the explicit language of:
the heat impulse is a square signal.
FRENKEL teaches a multiscale multidimensional well log data inversion and deep formation imaging method and the BRI of:
a square signal (See, e.g., Col 4 Line(s) 11-40).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DURU to include a square signal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DURU because it would be beneficial to improve well monitoring. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9, 12, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art of the parent claim(s) in view of TANG ET AL. (US 20240402383 A1) (hereinafter “TANG”).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, 16, 20, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However, DURU is lacking the explicit language of:
wherein
the integrated model includes
a semi-supervised machine learning model, neural network, and/or an iterative solver (See, e.g., ¶ 0026).
TANG teaches a hybrid modeling approach incorporates both physics-based reservoir modeling and machine learning technique and the BRI of:
a semi-supervised machine learning model, neural network, and/or an iterative solver.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DURU to include a semi-supervised machine learning model, neural network, and/or an iterative solver.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DURU because it would be beneficial to facilitating operations of a well in a reservoir. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 12, DURU teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However, DURU is lacking the explicit language of:
wherein
the one or more field operations include
well location selection, well depth selection, and/or produced water management.
TANG teaches a hybrid modeling approach incorporates both physics-based reservoir modeling and machine learning technique and the BRI of:
well location selection, well depth selection, and/or produced water management (See, e.g., ¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DURU to include well location selection, well depth selection, and/or produced water management.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DURU because it would be beneficial to facilitating operations of a well in a reservoir. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 04/06/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Applicants have amended claims 1, 13, and 17, as detailed hereinbelow, which Applicants respectfully submit overcomes the Examiner's rejections under each of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre- AIA ), first paragraph, (see Applicants' specification at least at paragraphs 0026 and 0031), and 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicants submit that Applicants' amended claims, and the claims dependent therefrom, are sufficiently definite, comply with the written description requirement, and are not directed to an abstract idea, as the claims are at least integrated into a practical limitation and, therefore, are not limited to mere mathematical steps within a mathematical algorithm.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The claimed amendment(s) does/do not cure the standing rejection(s). No additional arguments are present.
See updated rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment(s).
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 7, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
““Applicants have amended claims 1, 13, and 17, as detailed hereinbelow, which Applicants respectfully submit overcomes the Examiner's rejections under each of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre- AIA ), first paragraph, (see Applicants' specification at least at paragraphs 0026 and 0031), and 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicants submit that Applicants' amended claims, and the claims dependent therefrom, are sufficiently definite, comply with the written description requirement, and are not directed to an abstract idea, as the claims are at least integrated into a practical limitation and, therefore, are not limited to mere mathematical steps within a mathematical algorithm.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The claimed amendment(s) does/do not cure the standing rejection(s). No additional arguments are present.
See updated rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment(s).
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 8-10, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“None of the cited references, alone or in combination, show or suggest at least directing a heat impulse from a heat impulse origin into a formation sample comprising a matrix component and a fluid component at an input location through the formation sample such that a matrix impulse forms through the matrix component and a fluid impulse forms through the fluid component or directing one or more field operations within a reservoir formation based on the determined one or more reservoir parameters (emphasis added), as recited in amended claims 1, 13, and 17. Applicants' claims, therefore, recite an active process of directing a heat impulse through a sample for formation interrogation, whereas the Duru reference discloses and teaches a passive formation evaluation. The Frenkel and Tang references do not cure the deficiencies of Duru.
Claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 each depend from what is believed to be an allowable claim and so are allowable over the cited references for at least the reasons as claims 1, 13, and 17. Furthermore, each of the dependent claims includes additional limitations that may further distinguish each one over the cited references.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner maintains that DURU teaches modeling reservoir temperature transients and reservoir-parameter estimation constrained to the model and the BRI of the claimed invention of at least the independent claim(s).
See updated rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment(s).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights