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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a gas injection method for deep-layer strong bottom water sandstone reservoir comprising steps of: providing…combining…performing…and performing gas injection in the present reservoir through the optimal gas injection mode according to the optimal gas injection ratio” which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception? Yes.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 1 recites the steps “combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model…to analyze an exploitation rule of the residual oil…obtaining an optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums” and “performing….so as to obtain an increment in recovery efficiency corresponding to each gas injection mode, thereby determining an optimal gas injection mode” which fall within both mental processes and mathematical calculation. The steps may be carried out as a mental process if the algorithm is simple enough, and as a mathematical process if the algorithm is more complicated.
Limitation “combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model corresponding to the present reservoir to analyze an exploitation rule of the residual oil, thus obtaining an optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums” does show in details how to accomplish the combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model….and how to analyze an exploitation rule of the residual oil in order to obtain the optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums”. The step is not performed by any particular machine. Analyzing an exploitation rule…is mere instructions. The “obtained optimal gas injection ratio” is merely data gathering. The step recites mathematical calculation/concepts. The Specification discloses that the “group of simulation model” are mathematical models. For example, the Specification discloses that “reservoir numerical simulation is a method to show real reservoir dynamics through establishing mathematical models that characterize a fluid permeability law in the reservoir, and simulate actual oilfield exploitation in combination with fluid mechanics based on actual situation of reservoir geology and development.”
Likewise, limitation “performing…” does not recite any details of how to accomplish the gas injection simulation….and how to obtain an increment in recovery efficiency”. The “(obtained) increment in recovery…” is data.
The claimed invention thus recited as an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The step “performing gas injection in the present reservoir through the optimal gas injection model according to the optimal gas injection ratio” provides nothing more than mere instruction to perform gas injection. See MPEP 2106.05(f) which provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instruction to implement an abstract idea: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Limitation “combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model corresponding to the present reservoir to analyze an exploitation rule of the residual oil, thus obtaining an optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums” does show in details how to accomplish the combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model….and how to analyze an exploitation rule of the residual oil in order to obtain the optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums”. The step is not performed by any particular machine. Analyzing an exploitation rule…is mere instructions. The “obtained optimal gas injection ratio” is merely data gathering.
Likewise, limitation “performing…” does not recite any details of how to accomplish the gas injection simulation….and how to obtain an increment in recovery efficiency”. The “(obtained) increment in recovery…” is data.
The limitation “performing…according to the optimal gas injection ratio” can be considered as an additional element; however, it is not performed by any particular machine. It does not provide any details how to perform the gas injection. It provides only the idea of a solution or outcome and does not provide details how the performing step is accomplished.
When viewed in combination, this additional limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 when viewed as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claim limitations as recited when viewed as a whole do not include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Claim 13 recites a gas injection system which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the device to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via the recited modules. In other words, the system claim is no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the device claim recites generic components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
The recited modules are recited at such high level of generality and are tools for performing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 adds limitations when viewed as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The step “determining the target gas injection mediums according to a dissolution rule and density of each second gas injection medium in the present reservoir” is just an outcome of a solution. It does not show how to determine or how the determining is accomplished. The determined gas injection mediums is merely data.
Dependent claim 3 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea. The “(obtained) correlation…” is simply data. Its use is unlimited.
Dependent claim 4 adds a limitation which is mathematical calculation and data gather. The “(determined) whether a current gas injection medium has a miscible ability in the present reservoir based on an inflection point of slope of the curve”. It is at best equivalent of merely adding the word “apply it” to the judicial exception. It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 adds a limitation which is mathematical calculation (comparing…) and data gathering (obtaining the first gas injection mediums…). The “(obtained) first gas injection mediums….” Is merely data and insignificant and an extra solution.
Dependent claim 6 adds a limitation which is mathematical calculation (obtaining…) and data gathering (determining a second gas injection medium…) merely extending the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 adds a limitation which merely extend the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. “(Obtained) an increment…” is data gathering.
Dependent claim 9 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 10 adds a limitation “Performing gas injection simulation…” which is merely instruction and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 11 adds a limitation “configuring…performing gas injection simulation…” which is merely instruction and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “(Obtained) an increment…” is data gathering.
Dependent claim 12 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 7 is eligible because when viewed as a whole (with claims 1 and 6) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
Claims 1-17 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, Zhongyun et al. (CN 110110354) (submitted by Applicants) (English translation by Examiner) (hereinafter Zhongyun) discloses a gas injection method for deep-layer strong bottom water sandstone reservoir (Abstract: target cave type reservoir), comprising steps of:
providing a plurality of gas injection mediums for a present reservoir at issue, and analyzing a miscible feature of each gas injection medium in crude oil of the present reservoir, so as to select a number of target gas injection mediums that are conducive to utilizing residual oil in the present reservoir from the plurality of gas injection mediums (Zhongyun discloses at Page 3 that the target joint hole type reservoir, provided with at least one gas selected dimension of the selected target, the selection target set with pertinence; under the condition of the reservoir characteristics, calculating the gas to be selected corresponding to the said at least a gas selecting dimensionality data of dimensionality, the calculated dimension data to the target with the actual cave type reservoir for the real situation of injecting matching, and more has a reference value according to the dimension data. selecting injection gas from gas to be selected according to the selected target. However, Zhongyun only discloses one gas injection mediums but not a plurality of mediums. Further, Zhongyun discloses at Page 3 “setting module, which is used for aiming at a target cave type reservoir, at least one gas selected dimension of the selected target; a determining module for determining reservoir characteristics of target cave type reservoir, under the condition of the reservoir characteristic, calculating the gas to be selected corresponding to the dimension data in the at least one gas of the selected dimension; a selecting module, used for according to the selected dimension data, injecting gas from the gas to be selected according to the selected target”.
However, Zhongyun does not explicitly disclose “combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model corresponding to the present reservoir to analyze an exploitation rule of the residual oil, thus obtaining an optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums”.
Zhongyun does not disclose “performing, based on the optimal gas injection ratio and the well group simulation model, gas injection simulation for the present reservoir through a plurality of gas injection modes respectively, so as to obtain an increment in recovery efficiency corresponding to each gas injection mode, thereby determining an optimal gas injection mode; and performing gas injection in the present reservoir through the optimal gas injection mode according to the optimal gas injection ratio”.
Thakur et al. (USPAP. 2020/0202060)(submitted by Applicants) discloses at Paragraph 66 inputting into a computer system depletion data and rock and fluid properties of a reservoir; computing, with the computer system, a difference between a producing current gas-oil ratio and a solution gas-oil ratio to provide a free gas oil ratio; referring, with the computer system, to a gas-oil relative permeability curve of the reservoir; matching, with the computer system, the free gas oil ratio to a gas saturation on the gas-oil relative permeability curve to provide a free gas saturation; calculating, with the computer system, a current oil saturation of the hydrocarbon reservoir; determining, with the computer system, that the current reservoir pressure is less than a bubble point pressure; calculating, with the computer system, a time to repressurize/repressure the hydrocarbon reservoir by waterflooding; calculating, with the computer system, a number of wells for waterflooding; comparing, with the computer system, the data related to properties of the hydrocarbon reservoir to oil recovery screening criteria; selecting a flooding technique from a plurality of flooding techniques, with the computer system, based on satisfying the oil recovery screening criteria with the data related to properties of the hydrocarbon reservoir; flooding the reservoir; and recovering oil from the reservoir. Further, Thakur discloses at Pars. 73 and 78 a simulation model with the five spot or other well patters to simulate a pilot test for checking the optimum parameters needed for an efficient flood performance. However, Thakur’s simulation model is not used or recited as recited in the claimed limitation such as “combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model corresponding to the present reservoir to analyze an exploitation rude of the residual oil, thus obtaining an optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums”.
However, Thakur et al. does not explicitly disclose the method as recited in claim 1, e.g. the steps of “providing a plurality of gas injection mediums…combining the number of target gas injection mediums…performing, based on the optimal gas injection ratio…and performing, gas injection in the present reservoir through the optimal gas injection mode according to the optimal gas injection ratio”.
Shayegi et al. (USPN. 5725054) (submitted by Applicants) discloses a method for recovering oil from a subterranean formation penetrated by a well. Shayegi discloses a well gas mixture such as carbon dioxide and another gas such as methane, nitrogen, or mixtures are injected into the formation. A sufficient amount of the gas mixture is injected to establish in the vicinity of the well a zone of oil in contact with the gas mixture. The carbon dioxide comprises about 5 percent to about 50 percent by volume at reservoir conditions of the gas mixture; shutting in the well for a predetermined period of time; and producing the well and recovering the residual oil from the formation (see Shayegi: Abstract). In other words, Shayegi discloses the first limitation of claim 1, “providing a plurality of gas injection mediums (gas mixtures of carbon dioxide, methane, Nitrogen, or mixtures thereof) and analyzing a miscible feature of each gas injection medium in crude oil of the present reservoir, so as to select a number of target gas injection mediums….to utilizing residual oil in the present reservoir from the plurality of gas injection mediums”. Shayegi discloses tables and graphs showing both combination of gases follow similar trends with the oil recovery maximized at low carbon dioxide concentrations (see Tables at cols. 8-10). Shayegi further discloses shutting in said well for a predetermined period of time; and producing said well and recovering said oil from said formation (see Abstract; and col. 5, lines 28-53).
However, Shayegi fails to disclose “combining the number of target gas injection mediums…performing, based on the optimal gas injection ratio and the well group simulation model…and performing gas injection in the present reservoir through the optimal gas injection mode according to the optimal gas injection ratio”.
Therefore, regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “combining the number of target gas injection mediums with a well group simulation model corresponding to the present reservoir to analyze an exploitation rule of the residual oil, thus obtaining an optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums; performing, based on the optimal gas injection ratio and the well group simulation model….thereby determining an optimal gas injection model; and performing gas injection in the present reservoir through the optimal gas injection mode according to the optimal gas injection ratio” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “a gas injection ratio acquisition module, configured so that an exploitation rule of the residual oil is analyzed based on the number of target gas injection mediums in combination with a well group simulation model corresponding to the present reservoir, in order to obtain an optimal gas injection ratio between the target gas injection mediums; a gas injection mode acquisition module, configured so that gas injection simulation is performed in the present reservoir through each of a plurality of gas injection modes based on the optimal gas injection ratio and the well group simulation model, and an increment in recovery efficiency corresponding to each gas injection mode is obtained, based on which an optimal gas injection mode is determined; and a gas injection operation module, configured so that gas injection is performed in the present reservoir based on the optimal gas injection mode and the optimal gas injection ratio” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPAP. 20160009981 discloses a method to enhance oil recovery from a hydrocarbon reservoir. One aspect of the invention includes injecting low-salinity water into the reservoir followed by the injection of a surfactant diluted in low-salinity water, and alternating the injections of the low-salinity water and the surfactant diluted in the low-salinity water. A gas is then injected into the reservoir. The invention improves the effectiveness of the surfactant and the gas by reducing the salinity of the reservoir by injecting low-salinity water into the reservoir (Abstract; Pars. 51-56).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 M 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 December 22, 2025