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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on November 3, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application (CN202311456011.6) as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover Mathematical Concepts. Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a productivity of a coalbed methane well without shutting down the well, comprising steps of:
step 1: obtaining basic data of a target coalbed methane well, comprising coalbed methane PVT experimental data, an original formation pressure PRi, a bottomhole flow pressure Pwf of the coalbed methane well during production, and a daily production rate qsc;
step 2: based on the coalbed methane PVT experimental data obtained in the step 1, determining a relationship table between a pressure P and a coalbed methane deviation factor Z, and further determining a relationship table between the pressure P and a pseudo-pressure Ps, wherein Ps= P/Z;
step 3: performing stabilized bottomhole flow pressure test under constant production conditions in no less than three production stages of the coalbed methane well, and recording daily gas production rates qsc(1), qsc(2),…,qsc(n), bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(1), Pwf(2),…,Pwf(n) , and cumulative gas productions GP(1), GP(2), ..., GP(n) of the coalbed methane well at each stabilized flow pressure test moment;
step 4: setting an initial iterative assumption value GO of a gas well dynamic reserve, combining the cumulative gas productions GP(1), GP(2), ..., GP(n) at each stabilized flow pressure test moment in different production stages, and determining formation pressures PRm(1), PRm(2),…PRm(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment based on a material balance equation;
step 5: according to the formation pressures PRm(1), PRm(2),…PRm(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment determined based on the material balance equation, the bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(1), Pwf(2),…,Pwf(n) and the production rates qs(1), qsc(2),…qsc(n), determining coefficients A and B in a binomial deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well: P2R - Pwf2=Aqsc+Bq2sc, wherein PR is the formation pressure, Pwf is the bottomhole flow pressure of the coalbed methane well, and qsc is the daily production rate of the coalbed methane well;
step 6: based on the binomial deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well P2R - Pwf2=Aqsc+Bq2sc determined in the step 5, combining the bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(l), Pwf(2),..., Pwf(n) and the production rates qsc(1), qsc(2),…qsc(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment obtained in the step 3, and adopting PR=
Pw
f
2
+ Aq
sc
+ Bq
2
sc
to determine formation pressures PRp(1), PRp(2),…, PRp(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment, which means obtaining the formation pressures PRp(1), PRp(2),…, PRp(n) based on the binomial deliverability equation; and
step 7: performing an error test between the formation pressures PRm(1),PRm(2),… PRm(n) based on the material balance equation and the formation pressures PRp(1), PRp(2),..., PRp(n) based on the binomial deliverability equation corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment; if an error between the formation pressures obtained by different methods fails to meet a preset accuracy requirement, then repeating the steps 4-6 to iterate until the preset accuracy requirement is satisfied, wherein the binomial deliverability equation obtained when the preset accuracy requirement is met is a deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well; substituting the formation pressures and the bottomhole flow pressures into the deliverability equation of the coalbed methane well for solving, thereby obtaining the productivity of the coalbed methane well under corresponding formation pressure and bottomhole flow pressure conditions.
Examiner notes there are no computer components recited in the claims or specification. The italicized functions, when considered as a whole, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, and therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. For instance, steps 1-7 as seen above all involve mathematical calculations or formulations. Additionally, explicit formulae are recited in independent claim 1, and therefore the independent claim is overwhelmingly directed to determining a productivity of a coalbed methane well without shutting down a well which falls under “mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 2-3 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claim 1, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A- Prong 1 analysis.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein in the step 4, the formation pressures corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment are determined as follows:
determining formation pseudo-pressures PRs(1), PRs(2),…, PRs(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment based on a pseudo-pressure material balance equation, and then adopting interpolation or function fitting to calculate the corresponding formation pressures PRm(1), PRm(2),…, PRm(n) based on the relationship table between the pressure P and the pseudo-pressure Ps.
The above dependent claim 2 recites mathematical calculations, and therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts.”
Claim 3 recites:
wherein in the step 5, the coefficients A and B in the binomial deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well are determined by:
making y(i) =
P
2
R
(
i
)
-
P
2
w
f
(
i
)
q
s
c
(
i
)
, x(i) = qsc(i), i = 1,2, ..., n; according to the gas production rates qsc(1), qsc(2),…,gsc(n) of the coalbed methane well at each stabilized flow pressure test moment in different production stages and corresponding bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(1), Pwf(2),…, Pwf(n) , obtaining a series of observation points (y(i), x(i));
processing observation point data with linear fit, so that A is equal to an intercept of a linear equation obtained from the linear fit, and B is equal to a slope of the linear equation obtained from the linear fit.
The above dependent claim 3 recites mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations, and therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts.”
Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract
Step 2A- Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. Claims 1-3 do not recite any computer components. Even if computer hardware was being cited, it would amount to:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Simply appending 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., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d))
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 2-3 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above claims 1-3 do not recite any computer hardware or additional elements per se.
Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.
Thus, when considered as a whole and in combination, claims 1-3 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes at this time, there is no prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684