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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9, and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: a) In claim 1 lines 9-10, please change "calibrating, by the one or more processors, the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir" to: --calibrating, by the one or more processors, the SSA petrophysical model to a core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir--.
b) In claim 8 line 6, please change "calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir" to:
--calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to a core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir--. c) In claim 9 lines 1-2, please change "The non-transitory, computer readable storage medium of claim 8, generating the SCOP plot indicating the one or more perforation zones is performed" to:
--The non-transitory, computer readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein generating the SCOP plot indicating the one or more perforation zones is performed--.
d) In claim 15 line 10, please change "calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir" to:
--calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to a core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir--.
e) In claim 16 lines 1-2, please change "The computer-implemented system of claim 15, generating the SCOP plot indicating the one or more perforation zones is performed" to:
-- The computer-implemented system of claim 15, wherein generating the SCOP plot indicating the one or more perforation zones is performed --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-7 are to a process, claims 8-14 are to an article of manufacture, and claims 15-20 are to a machine. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying a perforation zone for a reservoir, comprising:
performing, by one or more processors, a Multimineral (MM) petrophysical evaluation using a MM petrophysical model;
calibrating, by the one or more processors, the MM petrophysical model to core data of a well in the reservoir;
performing, by the one or more processors, a shaly-sand-analysis (SSA) evaluation using a SSA petrophysical model;
calibrating, by the one or more processors, the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir;
calibrating, by the one or more processors, porosity (PHIT) and water saturation (SW) of the SSA petrophysical model to PHIT and SW output from the MM petrophysical model;
identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more intervals of the reservoir having a volume of sand (VSD) more than a first threshold value, a permeability more than a second threshold value, and a gas saturation more than a third threshold value;
calibrating, by the one or more processors, the VSD, the permeability, and the gas saturation of the one or more intervals to dynamic data of the reservoir; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a strategic completion optimization planner (SCOP) plot indicating one or more perforation zones within the one or more intervals.
8. A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
performing a Multimineral (MM) petrophysical evaluation using a MM petrophysical model;
calibrating the MM petrophysical model to core data of a well in a reservoir;
performing a shaly-sand-analysis (SSA) evaluation using a SSA petrophysical model;
calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir;
calibrating porosity (PHIT) and water saturation (SW) of the SSA petrophysical model to PHIT and SW output from the MM petrophysical model;
identifying one or more intervals of the reservoir having a volume of sand (VSD) more than a first threshold value, a permeability more than a second threshold value, and a gas saturation more than a third threshold value; calibrating the VSD, the permeability, and the gas saturation of the one or more intervals to dynamic data of the reservoir; and
generating a strategic completion optimization planner (SCOP) plot indicating one or more perforation zones within the one or more intervals.
15. A computer-implemented system, comprising:
one or more memory modules;
one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory modules to perform operations comprising:
performing a Multimineral (MM) petrophysical evaluation using a MM petrophysical model;
calibrating the MM petrophysical model to core data of a well in a reservoir;
performing a shaly-sand-analysis (SSA) evaluation using a SSA petrophysical model;
calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir;
calibrating porosity (PHIT) and water saturation (SW) of the SSA petrophysical model to PHIT and SW output from the MM petrophysical model;
identifying one or more intervals of the reservoir having a volume of sand (VSD) more than a first threshold value, a permeability more than a second threshold value, and a gas saturation more than a third threshold value; calibrating the VSD, the permeability, and the gas saturation of the one or more intervals to dynamic data of the reservoir; and
generating a strategic completion optimization planner (SCOP) plot indicating one or more perforation zones within the one or more intervals.
The limitations of "identifying a perforation zone for a reservoir" amount to a mental process to form an observation or recognize data, in order to analyze data to form a data categorization of a perforation zone for a reservoir. The limitations of "performing…a Multimineral (MM) petrophysical evaluation using a MM petrophysical model" amount to a mental process to evaluate data using a basic analysis model, and/or a mathematical concept if the MM petrophysical model involves more complex mathematical calculations to analyze numerical data of Multimineral petrophysical properties. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). The limitations of "calibrating…the MM petrophysical model to core data of a well in the reservoir" amount to a mental process to compare MM petrophysical model data to core data to determine adjustments, and/or a mathematical concept describing the numerical mathematical manipulations to adjust values of the MM petrophysical data relative to the core data of a well in the reservoir. The limitations of "performing…a shaly-sand analysis (SSA) evaluation using a SSA petrophysical model" amount to a mental process to evaluate data using a basic analysis model, and/or a mathematical concept if the SSA petrophysical model involves more complex mathematical calculations to analyze numerical data of shaly-sand petrophysical properties. The limitations of "calibrating…the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir" amount to a mental process to compare SSA petrophysical model data to core analysis volumetric result data to determine adjustments, and/or a mathematical concept describing the numerical mathematical manipulations to adjust values of the SSA petrophysical data based on core analysis volumetric result data of the reservoir. The limitations of "calibrating...porosity (PHIT) and water saturation (SW) of the SSA petrophysical model to PHIT and SW output from the MM petrophysical model" amount to a mental process to compare PHIT and SW between the SSA petrophysical model to the MM petrophysical model to determine differences, and/or a mathematical concept describing the numerical mathematical manipulations to adjust PHIT and SW values based on a difference comparison between values from the respective models. The limitations of "identifying…one or more intervals of the reservoir having a volume of sand (VSD) more than a first threshold value, a permeability more than a second threshold value, and a gas saturation more than a third threshold value" amount to a mental process to analyze and compare various data against threshold values. The limitations of "calibrating…the VSD, the permeability, and the gas saturation of the one or more intervals to dynamic data of the reservoir" amount to a mental process to compare VSD, permeability, and gas saturation to dynamic data to determine adjustments, and/or a mathematical concept describing the numerical mathematical manipulations to adjust values of the VSD, permeability, and gas saturation relative to the dynamic data of the reservoir. The limitations of "generating…a strategic completion optimization planner (SCOP) plot indicating one or more perforation zones within the one or more intervals" amounts to a mental process that can be performed by a person on pen and paper to evaluate boundaries indicating the perforation zones based on the identified intervals, or a mathematical concept to represent numerical data in a mathematically-based graph. Taken together, the bolded claim limitations describe steps of a series of a mental analysis or mathematical algorithm to process numerical data to generate additional numerical data, and thus it is clear that the claims contain limitations that describe an abstract idea. As explained by the EPG court: "Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category," (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 7).
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitations of "a computer-implemented method," "by one or more processors," "a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:", "a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more memory modules; one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory modules to perform operations comprising:", are all limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. These limitations have been identified and similarly underlined above, and are not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") because: (1) the recitations of "a computer-implemented method," "by one or more processors," "a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:", "a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more memory modules; one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory modules to perform operations comprising:", are all limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process or mathematical concept to describe data variable definitions and further numerical manipulations or comparisons. Dependent claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 describe limitations that amount to insignificant extrasolution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), where such data gathering must be performed in any case and is tangential addition to the judicial exception. The MPEP states that when “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)).
4. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical structures of a physical machine for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated SCOP plot to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field. In other words, the end result is an abstract data-based mental analysis result or mathematical calculation, without any application of the informational-based result to affect a physical change (beyond a mere data-based output or visual display) for an applied integration into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Lecerf et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0222405, hereinafter "Lecerf") at least teaches a computer-implemented method (Lecerf paragraph [0034] teaches a computer-implemented method) for identifying a perforation zone for a reservoir (Lecerf abstract and paragraph [0006] teaches identifying perforations (perforation zone) for a reservoir in select stages), comprising:
performing, by one or more processors (Lecerf paragraph [0041] teaches data analysis operations performed by a processor), a Multimineral (MM) petrophysical evaluation using a MM petrophysical model (Lecerf paragraphs [0065]-[0066] teach generating a three-dimensional mechanical earth model (MEM) for reservoir characterization (petrophysical evaluation) using united combinations of information from multiple disciplines including from a petrophysicist, where generating the model simulates the subterranean formation under development (e.g., generating a numerical representation of a state of stress and rock (mineral) mechanical properties for a given stratigraphic section in an oilfied or basin));
calibrating, by the one or more processors (Lecerf paragraph [0041] teaches data analysis operations performed by a processor), the MM petrophysical model to core data of a well in the reservoir (Lecerf paragraph [0086] and [0120] teach performing calibrations by comparing the result of the stimulation planning from the simulated model with observed data, where paragraphs [0050], [0062], and [0068] teach that the observed data amounts to core data obtained by drilling tools from a core sample);
performing, by the one or more processors (Lecerf paragraph [0041] teaches data analysis operations performed by a processor), a shaly-sand-analysis (SSA) evaluation using a SSA petrophysical model (Lecerf paragraphs [0076] and [0104] teach performing a shale-sand analysis using a SSA model that combines input natural fracture data with a 3D reservoir model).
6. However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lecerf (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0222405) fails to anticipate or render obvious a computer-implemented method for identifying a perforation zone for a reservoir, comprising: calibrating, by the one or more processors, the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir; calibrating, by the one or more processors, porosity (PHIT) and water saturation (SW) of the SSA petrophysical model to PHIT and SW output from the MM petrophysical model; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more intervals of the reservoir having a volume of sand (VSD) more than a first threshold value, a permeability more than a second threshold value, and a gas saturation more than a third threshold value, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Similarly, claim 8 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lecerf (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0222405) fails to anticipate or render obvious a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir; calibrating porosity (PHIT) and water saturation (SW) of the SSA petrophysical model to PHIT and SW output from the MM petrophysical model; identifying one or more intervals of the reservoir having a volume of sand (VSD) more than a first threshold value, a permeability more than a second threshold value, and a gas saturation more than a third threshold value, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Similarly, claim 15 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Lecerf (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0222405) fails to anticipate or render obvious a computer-implemented system, comprising: calibrating the SSA petrophysical model to core analysis volumetric result of the reservoir; calibrating porosity (PHIT) and water saturation (SW) of the SSA petrophysical model to PHIT and SW output from the MM petrophysical model; identifying one or more intervals of the reservoir having a volume of sand (VSD) more than a first threshold value, a permeability more than a second threshold value, and a gas saturation more than a third threshold value, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.7. Dependent claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1, dependent claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 8, and dependent claims 16-20 depend from claim 15 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 15.
Pertinent Art
8. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Al-Dhafeeri (US Pat. No. 11,814,957) discloses Characterize Productive Zones in Hydrocarbon Wellbores. C. Georgi et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0287201) discloses Pore-Scale Geometric Models for Interpretation of Downhole Formation Evaluation Data.
D. McAdow et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0040709) discloses Fluid Saturation Model for Petrophysical Inversion.
E. Obathani et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0018988) discloses Generating Dynamic Reservoir Descriptions Using Geostatistics in a Geological Model.
F. Sani et al. (US Pat Pub. 2022/0268154) discloses Reservoir Staging Index (RSI).
G. Xu et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2025/0101850) discloses System and Method for Matching Bed Boundaries and Depth Between Core and Well Logs.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights