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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the use of a mathematical model for modelling leaks within a sequestration well based on well parameters.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying well is accomplished through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the model parameters must necessarily be “received” in order to implement the use of the mathematical model. Rendering a graphic template of the well based on the model in a GUI amounts to the mere extra-solution activity of displaying the results of the modelling. The recited memory storage, hardware-based processor, and non-transitory, computer-readable medium containing programming instructions amount to the use of elements of a general-purpose computer for implementation of the modelling and do not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 20200284945 A1)[hereinafter “Khan”] and Duguid et al. (US 20090272530 A1)[hereinafter “Duguid”].
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Khan discloses a method (and corresponding memory storage, hardware-based processor, and non-transitory, computer-readable medium containing programming instructions [See Paragraph [0047]]) for computing flow into an upper aquifer in a leaky well [Paragraph [0107] – “In an aspect of the present disclosure, a method is described for modelling a reservoir in order to predict the effects on caprock uplift, reservoir stability and fracture reactivation during CO.sub.2 injection.”Paragraph [0108] – “The large amount of additional CO.sub.2 may swell the reservoir and cause caprock uplift or reactivate a fracture the reservoir. A fracture in the subsurface areas above the Biyadh layer may allow CO.sub.2 to leak upward, becoming less dense, to enter the potable ground water of the Um Ar Radhuma reservoir.”See Fig. 1.], comprising:
receiving initial parameters for modeling a leak in a well [Paragraph [0152] – “The fully coupled carbon dioxide flow and reservoir deformation models are generated in the COMSOL multiphysics software, wherein the MATLAB code has been utilized to generate the input properties of the rock at each node of the reservoir's model.”], the parameters including an initial temperature and an initial pressure [Paragraph [0153] – “The multiphase flow of carbon dioxide through the reservoir is simulated by a compositional simulator. In a non-limiting example, the GEM flow simulator is used. The composition of the phase is permitted to change due to the variations in pressure and quantity of the injected fluid. A compositional reservoir simulator calculates the Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) properties of oil and gas phases once they have been fitted to an equation of state (EOS), as a mixture of components. An Equation of State (EOS) is a simplified mathematical model that calculates the phase behavior of the reservoir.”]; and
dividing the well into multiple segments [See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0122], particularly – “the reservoir model which includes reservoir boundary conditions, a three dimensional size of the reservoir, faults in the reservoir, lithography, rock densities, porosities (Ø), and depths of the caprock and the plurality of subsurface layers; initial values of the horizontal stresses (σ), the volumetric strain (ε.sub.v), the pore pressures, the permeabilities (k.sub.0), the pressure wave velocities and the shear wave velocities of the reservoir, the caprock and the subsurface layers sourced from the database memory”Paragraph [0152] – “The fully coupled carbon dioxide flow and reservoir deformation models are generated in the COMSOL multiphysics software, wherein the MATLAB code has been utilized to generate the input properties of the rock at each node of the reservoir's model.”].
Khan fails to disclose:
calculating, using the initial parameters as first input parameters, first output parameters for a first segment, the first output parameters including a first output pressure; and
calculating, using the first output parameters as second input parameters, second output parameters for a second segment, the second output parameters including a second output pressure.
However, Duguid discloses calculating, using initial parameters as first input parameters, first output parameters for a first segment, the first output parameters including a first output pressure [Abstract – “Methods and related systems are described for making measurements at multiple locations in an annular region of a cased sequestration well. A first tool module is positionable within the well and adapted to directly or indirectly measure changing pressure at a first location in the annular region of the well. A pressure change is induced at the first location in the annular region.”]; and
calculating, using the first output parameters as second input parameters, second output parameters for a second segment, the second output parameters including a second output pressure [Abstract – “A second tool module is positionable within the well and adapted to directly or indirectly measure changing pressure at a second location in the annular region. The measured pressure changes at the second location are in response to the induced pressure change at the first location.”Paragraph [0042] – “By establishing and testing a pressure gradient in both directions in response to the pressure change in zone 450, a better estimate of the permeability of the well can be obtained in some applications. The arrangement using three zones as shown in FIG. 4 can be particularly useful in cases where the permeability is believed to be different above and below the two zones.” The “second output parameters” being pressure and permeability.].
It would have been obvious to take such an approach in evaluating different segments of the well because doing so would have been an effective manner of better assessing the pressures of different well segments and corresponding permeabilities of different well segments.
Khan, as modified, would disclose generating a model of the leak in the well [Paragraph [0107] – “In an aspect of the present disclosure, a method is described for modelling a reservoir in order to predict the effects on caprock uplift, reservoir stability and fracture reactivation during CO.sub.2 injection.”Paragraph [0108] – “The large amount of additional CO.sub.2 may swell the reservoir and cause caprock uplift or reactivate a fracture the reservoir. A fracture in the subsurface areas above the Biyadh layer may allow CO.sub.2 to leak upward, becoming less dense, to enter the potable ground water of the Um Ar Radhuma reservoir.”See Fig. 1.] by using an aggregation of the first output parameters and second output parameters [Paragraph [0153] – “The multiphase flow of carbon dioxide through the reservoir is simulated by a compositional simulator. In a non-limiting example, the GEM flow simulator is used. The composition of the phase is permitted to change due to the variations in pressure and quantity of the injected fluid. A compositional reservoir simulator calculates the Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) properties of oil and gas phases once they have been fitted to an equation of state (EOS), as a mixture of components. An Equation of State (EOS) is a simplified mathematical model that calculates the phase behavior of the reservoir.”Per the determination of the output parameters of Duguid.].
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Khan discloses rendering a graphic template of the well based on the model in a graphical user interface ("GUI")[See Fig. 1.Paragraph [0163] – “The model incorporates coupled geo-mechanical modelling and simulation to analyze stability. In a non-limiting example, the coupled geo-mechanical modelling and simulation are performed using both the CMG-GEM (Computer Modeling Group Ltd.-Geomechanical Modeling Software) and COMSOL (cross-platform finite element solver and multiphysics simulation software) have been utilized. COMSOL allows conventional physics-based user interfaces and coupled systems of partial differential equations. COMSOL and CMG-GEM are multiphysics software which may be used to model the flow of a fluid in the reservoir and the accompanying deformation of the reservoir. GEM is an efficient, multidimensional, Equation-Of-State (EOS) simulator that provides the flexibility to use custom script files for performing multiphysics operations. An Equation of State (EOS) is a simplified mathematical model that calculates the phase behavior of the reservoir.”].
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Khan discloses that the graphic template includes one or more pseudo-nodes that represent a change in a topology, a change in a reservoir property, or a fault [Per Paragraph [0006] of the instant Specification (“Psuedo-nodes represent natural changes, such as a change in topology, a change in a reservoir property, a fault, or something else. The nodes and pseudo-nodes are connected by edges that represent an approximated flow of oil and water in a porous media. In other words, each edge is a model of part of the reservoir and represents the average reservoir properties affecting the hydraulic relationship between the associated leaky wells, neighboring wells, and pseudo-nodes.”) pseudo-nodes are interpreted as taking the form of property representations.See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0122], particularly – “the reservoir model which includes reservoir boundary conditions, a three dimensional size of the reservoir, faults in the reservoir, lithography, rock densities, porosities (Ø), and depths of the caprock and the plurality of subsurface layers; initial values of the horizontal stresses (σ), the volumetric strain (ε.sub.v), the pore pressures, the permeabilities (k.sub.0), the pressure wave velocities and the shear wave velocities of the reservoir, the caprock and the subsurface layers sourced from the database memory”Paragraph [0045] – “In an exemplary embodiment, a method for carbon dioxide sequestration in a geologic reservoir having a caprock and a plurality of subsurface layers between the reservoir and the caprock is described comprising constructing a reservoir model, varying injection pressures of CO2, the number of injection wells, the locations of the injection wells and an array formation of the injection wells, the sizes of the model and the boundaries of the model to determine changes in changes in the porosity, the horizontal stresses, the pore pressures, the permeabilities, the pressure wave velocities and the shear wave velocities which affect fracturing, fracture reactivation and caprock uplift.”].
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Khan discloses the graphic template including edges connected to nodes representing the well and the one or more pseudo-nodes [Per Paragraph [0006] of the instant Specification (“Psuedo-nodes represent natural changes, such as a change in topology, a change in a reservoir property, a fault, or something else. The nodes and pseudo-nodes are connected by edges that represent an approximated flow of oil and water in a porous media. In other words, each edge is a model of part of the reservoir and represents the average reservoir properties affecting the hydraulic relationship between the associated leaky wells, neighboring wells, and pseudo-nodes.”) pseudo-nodes are interpreted as taking the form of property representations and edges are interpreted as taking the form of the modeling of approximated flow representations at nodes.Paragraph [0152], nodes – “The fully coupled carbon dioxide flow and reservoir deformation models are generated in the COMSOL multiphysics software, wherein the MATLAB code has been utilized to generate the input properties of the rock at each node of the reservoir's model.”See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0122], pseudo-nodes, particularly – “the reservoir model which includes reservoir boundary conditions, a three dimensional size of the reservoir, faults in the reservoir, lithography, rock densities, porosities (Ø), and depths of the caprock and the plurality of subsurface layers; initial values of the horizontal stresses (σ), the volumetric strain (ε.sub.v), the pore pressures, the permeabilities (k.sub.0), the pressure wave velocities and the shear wave velocities of the reservoir, the caprock and the subsurface layers sourced from the database memory”Paragraph [0153], edges – “The multiphase flow of carbon dioxide through the reservoir is simulated by a compositional simulator. In a non-limiting example, the GEM flow simulator is used.” Also, Paragraph [0136] – “The second embodiment is drawn to an alarming system for leakage in a geologic reservoir (110 or 114, FIG. 1)”].
Regarding Claim 5, 12, and 19, Khan discloses [Per Paragraph [0006] of the instant Specification (“Psuedo-nodes represent natural changes, such as a change in topology, a change in a reservoir property, a fault, or something else. The nodes and pseudo-nodes are connected by edges that represent an approximated flow of oil and water in a porous media. In other words, each edge is a model of part of the reservoir and represents the average reservoir properties affecting the hydraulic relationship between the associated leaky wells, neighboring wells, and pseudo-nodes.”) sub-edges are interpreted as taking the form of the modeling parameters for approximated flow representations at nodes.] that each edge includes a first sub-edge representing a corresponding wellbore [The different wellbores being modelled in Fig. 1], a third sub-edge representing equation of state properties [Paragraph [0163] – “An Equation of State (EOS) is a simplified mathematical model that calculates the phase behavior of the reservoir.”], and a fourth sub-edge representing temperature [Paragraph [0153] – “A compositional reservoir simulator calculates the Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) properties of oil and gas phases once they have been fitted to an equation of state (EOS), as a mixture of components.].
Khan fails to disclose that each edge includes a second sub-edge representing a corresponding cement annulus.
However, Daguid discloses the evaluation of a cement annulus as a parameter in evaluating the ability of a well to effectively perform sequestration [Paragraph [0021] – “According to embodiments, various tool configurations can be used in tool 120 to establish flow and/or measure pressure differences between two or more sets of perforations in cased wells. The data collected from the measurements of tool 120 are used to establish if the cement in annular region 116 and interfaces between the cement and casing 118 and cement and formation 112 are sufficiently capable of isolation for use in connection with sequestration activity. For example, in the sequestration of CO2, the cement will be exposed to CO2 and/or carbonic acid. The data from tool 120 can also be used to calculate the bulk mobility or permeability of the material and pathways between the casing and the formation.”].
It would have been obvious to use cement annulus as a parameter in evaluating the ability of a well to effectively perform sequestration because Daguid teaches that such a parameter impacts the well’s ability in performing sequestration.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, Daguid teaches determining that the first output pressure is not equal to an initial pressure for the second segment; responsive to the determination, calculating an estimated pressure drop [See Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0026] – “According to alternate embodiments, a pressure differential can be created using pumping module 234. For example, pumping module 234 can pump fluid from the packed off region 254 via module 236 and into region 256 via module 232. Thus a pressure differential will be effected between annular zones 250 and 252. Note that such a pressure differential can also be reversed by pumping with module 234 in the opposite direction, causing flow and pressure drops in a direction opposite to shown by the dashed arrows in FIG. 2.”Paragraph [0042] – “By establishing and testing a pressure gradient in both directions in response to the pressure change in zone 450, a better estimate of the permeability of the well can be obtained in some applications.”];
calculating, based on the first output pressure and the estimated pressure drop, a corrected pressure; and using the corrected pressure as a second input parameter when calculating the second output parameters [Paragraph [0042] – “By establishing and testing a pressure gradient in both directions in response to the pressure change in zone 450, a better estimate of the permeability of the well can be obtained in some applications. The arrangement using three zones as shown in FIG. 4 can be particularly useful in cases where the permeability is believed to be different above and below the two zones.” One of the “second output parameters” being permeability.].
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Daguid teaches that the first output parameters are calculated using a first algorithm corresponding to a first leak type [Paragraph [0021] – “According to embodiments, various tool configurations can be used in tool 120 to establish flow and/or measure pressure differences between two or more sets of perforations in cased wells. The data collected from the measurements of tool 120 are used to establish if the cement in annular region 116 and interfaces between the cement and casing 118 and cement and formation 112 are sufficiently capable of isolation for use in connection with sequestration activity. For example, in the sequestration of CO2, the cement will be exposed to CO2 and/or carbonic acid.”], and the second output parameters are calculated using a second algorithm corresponding to a second leak type [Paragraph [0021] – “The data from tool 120 can also be used to calculate the bulk mobility or permeability of the material and pathways between the casing and the formation.”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160298447 A1 – LEAKAGE DETECTION USING SMART FIELD TECHNOLOGY
US 20100318337 A1 – METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR MODELED CARBON SEQUESTRATION
US 20120206144 A1 – Method And Apparatus For Monitoring Cement Sheath Degradation Related To CO2 Exposure
US 20200024930 A1 – Method For Optimizing Sensor Network Node Location In Geological CO2 Storage Area
US 20080319726 A1 – SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING OILFIELD SIMULATION OPERATIONS
US 20230193743 A1 – METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING CARBON DIOXIDE SUPPLIES USING MACHINE LEARNING
US 7704746 B1 – Method Of Detecting Leakage From Geologic Formations Used To Sequester CO.sub.2
Gandomkar et al., Leak-Off Test Model Combining Wellbore and Near-Wellbore Mechanical Behavior, SPE, 2015
Huerta et al., Utilizing Sustained Casing Pressure Analog to Provide Parameters to Study CO2 Leakage Rates Along a Wellbore, SPE, 2009
Postler, Pressure Integrity Test Interpretation, SPE, 1997
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights