DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
Element(s) 102, 103, & 104 (pump; Examiner will accept a single label, e.g., for 102 only) in fig. 1 and 505 & 506 (reservoirs; both need labels), 502, 503, & 504 (pump; Examiner will again accept a single label, e.g., for 502) in fig. 5 need appropriate legends in the form of descriptive text labels in addition to any reference characters already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards for the text labels), and MPEP § 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”). Appropriate Correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o) for lacking suitable descriptive legends. Suitable descriptive legends are required by the Examiner for understanding of the drawing. The descriptive legends should contain as few words as possible. In particular, the following legend(s) is/are required:
Plot title (e.g., Fresh Fracture), X-axis label (e.g., Stress), Y-axis label in fig. 2;
Plot title, X-axis label, Y-axis label in fig. 3; and
Plot title, X-axis label, Y-axis label in fig. 4.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because of the inclusion of the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “600” (fig. 6). The Examiner notes that in fig. 6, 600 appears to be the Computer System and that 602 appears to be the Computer.
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
use of phrases which can be implied (“are discussed”); and
insufficient assistance to the reader (e.g., parameters lack explanation).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to
because of the following informalities:
inconsistencies in parameter naming including use of subscripts (e.g. see ki and αE in [0006]-[0007].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 and 10-19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 8,
“increasing the pressure applied by the third pump to yield the third effective stress corresponding to the stress point C” appears to be redundant to limitation “increasing the pressure applied by the third pump to yield a third effective stress corresponding to a stress point C” in claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. The Examiner suggests either deleting this limitation from claim 8 or providing persuasive explanation as to why this limitation is included in claim 8.
As to claim 18,
substantially similar to the analysis of claim 8,“increasing the pressure applied by the third pump to yield the third effective stress corresponding to the stress point C” appears to be redundant to limitation “increasing the pressure applied by the third pump to yield a third effective stress corresponding to a stress point C” in claim 17 from which claim 18 depends.
As to independent claim 10,
“αP is stress sensitivity parameter” lacks an article, the Examiner suggesting “αP is a stress sensitivity parameter”.
As to independent claim 11,
“αP is stress sensitivity parameter” lacks an article, the Examiner suggesting “αP is a stress sensitivity parameter”.
Dependent claim(s) of objected to claim(s) is/are likewise objected to.
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.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (broadest reasonable interpretation includes signals per se, thus directed to nonstatutory subject matter).
Regarding independent claim 11,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim that is drawn to a computer readable medium/device (or a machine readable medium and other variations thereof) usually covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (See MPEP § 2111.01), unless explicitly re/defined in the application otherwise. Since the claims are directed to a computer-readable medium/device that covers signals per se, any claim drawn to a computer-readable medium to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended by adding the limitation "non- transitory" to the claim so as to narrow the claim to exclude the signal embodiment and to cover only statutory embodiments and thus avoid further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. This amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent.
Consequently, since the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) covers a signal per se, and because the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the aforementioned claim(s) is/are directed to nonstatutory functional descriptive material per se. See MPEP § 2106(II) ESTABLISH BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM AS A WHOLE, MPEP § 2106.03, In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134, and Ex parte Mewherter (Appeal 2012-007692), 107 USPQ2d 1857.
Dependent claim(s) of rejected claim(s) is/are likewise rejected.
The Examiner suggests "non-transitory computer readable medium" for all instances in claims 11-19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 11-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1,
the prior art fails to disclose or motivate one skilled in the art to perform a method of comprising (omission/paraphrasing for brevity/clarity; additional emphasis in italics) “determining a ki parameter, an αE parameter, and an αP parameter based at least in part on the at least four pairs of effective stress and permeability”, “wherein
the ki parameter is an initial permeability of the sample rock before any elastic or plastic deformation of the sample rock,
the αP parameter is a stress sensitivity parameter for permeability associated with plastic deformation of the sample rock, and
the αE parameter is a stress sensitivity parameter for permeability associated with elastic deformation of the sample rock” and
“predicting a hydrocarbon production rate from reservoir represented by the sample rock based at least in part on the ki parameter, the αE parameter, and the αP parameter” in further combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependent claim(s) thereof is/are likewise allowed.
Regarding independent claim 10,
the prior art fails to disclose or motivate one skilled in the art to manufacture a system comprising (omission/paraphrasing for brevity/clarity; additional emphasis in italics) "a reservoir characterization device configured to:” “generate at least four pairs of effective stress and permeability”, “wherein ki is an initial permeability of the sample rock before any elastic or plastic deformation of the sample rock, αP is stress sensitivity parameter for permeability associated with plastic deformation of the sample rock, and αE is a stress sensitivity parameter for permeability associated with elastic deformation of the sample rock” and “predict a hydrocarbon production rate from reservoir represented by the sample rock based at least in part on the ki parameter, the αE parameter, and the αP parameter” in further combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding independent claim 11,
the prior art fails to disclose or motivate one skilled in the art to manufacture a (non-transitory) computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors perform the following method (omission/paraphrasing for brevity/clarity) “determining a ki parameter, an αE parameter, and an αP parameter based at least in part on the at least four pairs of effective stress and permeability”, “wherein
the ki parameter is an initial permeability of the sample rock before any elastic or plastic deformation of the sample rock,
the αP parameter is stress sensitivity parameter for permeability associated with plastic deformation of the sample rock, and
the αE parameter is a stress sensitivity parameter for permeability associated with elastic deformation of the sample rock” and
“predicting a hydrocarbon production rate from reservoir represented by the sample rock based at least in part on the ki parameter, the αE parameter, and the αP parameter” in further combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependent claim(s) thereof is/are likewise indicated as conditionally allowable.
None of the prior art of record appears to read on the invention as understood by the Examiner and the subject matter of the claim(s) appears to be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be overcome. Note that this indication of allowable subject matter is based upon the features which are presently found in the claims. In overcoming the above rejection(s), should Applicant choose to delete features which are presently in the claim(s), this indication of allowable subject matter may no longer apply. Deleting features which are presently in the claim(s) broadens the scope of the claim(s) and thus may render the indication of allowable subject matter no longer applicable.
Further in accordance with MPEP § 1302.14(I), the closest prior art, US 20220214262 A1 “Liu262”, describes a rock core (11) testing apparatus (see fig. 1) that has an upstream, downstream, and confining pressure pumps (32, 42, 50), a plurality of pressure (P), temperature (T), & flow meter sensors (31, 41), and which may further be used to predict hydrocarbon production from a reservoir in the formation ([0069]). The subject matter of the independent claim(s) differ(s) non-obviously from the closest prior art in that the core sample rock is fractured, and that especially the core sample rock is not intentionally stressed by the pumps to obtain four pairs of effective stress & permeability values and measure associated plastic deformation to be used as input for predicting the hydrocarbon production rate. The Examine further notes that Applicant cited NPL Permeability model of fractured rock with consideration of elastic‐plastic deformation by Zhao et al is suggestive of consideration of elastic-plastic deformation of fractured rock (Title) and comprises a triaxial cell (see fig. 3) for the loading & unloading on the rock core sample, but is insufficient even in combination with Liu262 to suggest the aforementioned prediction of the hydrocarbon production rate based on at least the plastic deformation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 28MAR2026