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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 recite performing a geostatistical interpolation processing. It cannot be determined if this was intended to be a different interpolation than the interpolation recited in the independent claims. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that the geostatistical interpolation processing further define the interpolation recited in the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessling, et al. US2017/0145804 in view of Badri, et al. US2017/0103144 and Nikitenko, et al. US2017/0254924.
Regarding claim 1, Wessling, et al. teaches a computer-implemented method (Figure 1 shows computer 15 and drilling system 10 to implement this method), comprising:
obtaining, from a resistivity logging tool 11 and at a plurality of time points (Figure 4 shows resistivity at different measured depths, thus indicating multiple/ plurality of time points, since this is done while drilling per ¶0029) during a process of drilling a wellbore (Figure 1) in a reservoir formation 4, resistivity data (resistivity map shown in Figure 3, or example) of the reservoir formation in a first plurality of azimuthal directions (the resistivity map in Figure 3 shows x-z directions, thus showing a plurality of azimuthal directions), the resistivity data being indicative of types of formation fluid in a pore space (¶0032 “forward and/or inversion modeling results provide a distribution of the resistivity around and away from the wellbore, from which geological boundaries can be inferred. Boundaries may be rock boundaries such as the boundary between a low-resistive shale caprock and a highly-resistive oil-saturated reservoir. In addition, boundaries may originate from a resistivity contrast between different fluid types filled in a porous and/or fracture subsurface”);
determining, based on the resistivity data, fluid saturation (Figure 8 “calculate saturation map from porosity map and resistivity map” block, lower right) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions distributed across a plurality of layers at different distances from the wellbore (Figure 4 shows a resistivity map in layers (the striations along x axis measured depth) at different distances from the wellbore (along th e true vertical depth y axis from the trajectory of the wellbore, thus indicating distances away from the wellbore). The claims do not include limitations as to the orientation of the layers, therefore the different measurements taken along the measured depth can be considered the layers. See Figure A below, annotated from Figure 4, showing example layers and distances. These are not inclusive of all possible distances and layers);
PNG
media_image1.png
376
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Figure 4, Wessling.
generating a model of fluid saturation (Figure 8);
generating, one or more steering commands (Figure 13) for steering a drill bit during the process of drilling the wellbore; and steering (Figure 13), based on the one or more steering commands, a downhole drilling assembly 6 during the process of drilling the wellbore (drilling shown in Figure 1).
Wesslin, et al. further suggests that a 3D (three dimensional representation) model could be generated to provide a volume-based distribution of formation properties about the wellbore ¶0029 " a three-dimensional representation of formation property may be recorded to provide a volume-based distribution of formation properties around a wellbore."
Wessling, et al. does not teach generating, using the fluid saturation of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions and by interpolating the fluid saturation between the plurality of layers, a three-dimensional (3D) model of fluid saturation around the wellbore; and generating the steering commands based on the 3D model of fluid saturation around the wellbore.
Badri, et al. teaches that it is well known in the art of directional drilling to create a 3D model 502 (shown in Figure 5) to create a planned well trajectory ¶0067, for steering system 108.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method step of Wessling, et al. to determine the model of fluid saturation in view of the method step of Badri, et al. to determine a 3D model with a reasonable expectation of success in planning well trajectory. The modification would necessarily create the 3D model of fluid saturation comprising a real time characterization of fluid dynamics of each type of the types of formation fluid in the pore space, for each of the plurality of time points, since Wessling, et al. teaches taking measurements at a plurality of time-point (Wessling, et al., Figure 4 with various time-points).
Nikitenko, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use geostatistical interpolation for saturation measuring and geosteering system ¶0063, to estimate continuous profiles of resistivity (¶0063 “ to estimate the continuous profile of horizontal resistivity, such as Gregory-Newton interpolation formula, Lagrange polynomials, or Newton's interpolation method”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s method step of processing data to transform fluid saturation from one dimension to two dimensions in view of the geostatistical interpolation processing of Nikitenko, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a continuous profile of horizontal resistivity.
Regarding claim 2, Wessling, et al. teaches that obtaining the resistivity data comprises obtaining the resistivity data (from 11) and at least one of density data ¶47 of the reservoir formation in a second plurality of azimuthal directions, photoelectric (PE) factor data of the reservoir formation in a third plurality of azimuthal directions, gamma ray (GR) data of the reservoir formation in a fourth plurality of azimuthal directions, or porosity indicator data of the reservoir formation converted from total neutron count.
Regarding claim 3, Badri, et al. teaches that determining the fluid saturation (¶0058 “analysis of the subsurface data can be used to construct and/or update a fluid saturation cube in which fluids in at least a portion of formation 142 are mapped”. The subsurface data includes the lithology and porosity, and the mapped fluids are the fluid saturation map) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions comprises:
determining, as a determined lithology and porosity 504 (Figure 5) of the reservoir formation and based on the resistivity data and the at least one of density data, PE factor data, GR data, or porosity indicator data, lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation (504); and determining, based on the determined lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation, the fluid saturation (¶0058) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions.
Regarding claim 4, Wessling, et al. teaches that determining lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation comprises: determining, based on at least one of a plurality of density-neutron cross-plots, a plurality of volume of shale equations, or a plurality of fluid saturation equations, the porosity (¶0035) of the reservoir formation.
Badri, et al. teaches determining lithology 504 and porosity 504 (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Wessling, et al. teaches that the resistivity data is with respect
to a plurality of depths of investigation (DOI) (Figure 4 shows true vertical depth, which is interpreted to be the same as the depths of investigation).
Regarding claim 8, Wessling, et al. teaches that steering the downhole drilling
assembly comprises sending the one or more steering commands to the downhole drilling assembly to steer the downhole drilling assembly (as shown in Figure 13, which provides geosteering decisions).
Regarding claim 9, Wessling, et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions (¶0028) executable by a computer system 15 to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, from a resistivity logging tool 11 at a plurality of time points (as described above) and during a process of drilling a wellbore (Figure 1) in a reservoir formation 4, resistivity data (Figure 2-4) of the reservoir formation in a first plurality of azimuthal directions (such as the X-Z cross sections shown in Figure 3 for the resistivity map) the resistivity data being indicative of types of formation fluid in a pore space (as described above);
determining, based on the resistivity data, fluid saturation (Figure 8, as described above) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions across a plurality of layers at different distances from the wellbore (Figure 4 shows a resistivity map in layers (the striations along x axis measured depth) at different distances from the wellbore (along th e true vertical depth y axis from the trajectory of the wellbore, thus indicating distances away from the wellbore). The claims do not include limitations as to the orientation of the layers, therefore the different measurements taken along the measured depth can be considered the layers. See Figure A above, annotated from Figure 4, showing example layers and distances. These are not inclusive of all possible distances and layers);
determining, based on the fluid saturation of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions, a model of fluid saturation (the above described saturation map) around the wellbore;
generating, based on the model of fluid saturation around the wellbore, one or more steering commands (as described above) for steering a drill bit 8 during the process of drilling the wellbore (Figure 12 shows drilling path); and
steering (Figure 12 shows the strategic steering decision), based on the one or more steering commands, a downhole drilling assembly during the process of drilling the wellbore.
Wessling, et al. further suggests that a 3D model can be generated, as described above.
Wessling, et al. does not teach the fluid saturation map is a three-dimensional (3D) model of fluid saturation around the wellbore, and does not teach the generating the 3D model of fluid saturation based on the fluid satutation of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions and by interpolating the fluid saturation between the plurality of layers.
Badri, et al. teaches that it is well known in the art of directional drilling to create a 3D model 502 (shown in Figure 5) to create a planned well trajectory ¶0067, for steering system 108.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method step of Wessling, et al. to determine the model of fluid saturation in view of the method step of Badri, et al. to determine a 3D model with a reasonable expectation of success in planning well trajectory. The modification would necessarily create the 3D model of fluid saturation comprising a real time characterization of fluid dynamics of each type of the types of formation fluid in the pore space, for each of the plurality of time points, since Wessling, et al. teaches taking measurements at a plurality of time-point (Wessling, et al., Figure 4 with various time-points).
Nikitenko, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use geostatistical interpolation for saturation measuring and geosteering system ¶0063, to estimate continuous profiles of resistivity (¶0063 “ to estimate the continuous profile of horizontal resistivity, such as Gregory-Newton interpolation formula, Lagrange polynomials, or Newton's interpolation method”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s method step of processing data to transform fluid saturation from one dimension to two dimensions in view of the geostatistical interpolation processing of Nikitenko, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a continuous profile of horizontal resistivity.
Regarding claim 10, Wessling, et al. teaches that obtaining the resistivity
data comprises obtaining the resistivity data and at least one of density data of the reservoir formation in a second plurality of azimuthal directions (¶0047 and Figure 8, wherein the second azimuthal directions are interpreted to be any of the at least two dimensional direction for obtaining this data), photoelectric (PE) factor data of the reservoir formation in a third plurality of azimuthal directions, gamma ray (GR) data of the reservoir formation in a fourth plurality of azimuthal directions, or porosity indicator data of the reservoir formation converted from total neutron count.
Regarding claim 11, Badri, et al. teaches that determining the fluid saturation (¶0058 “analysis of the subsurface data can be used to construct and/or update a fluid saturation cube in which fluids in at least a portion of formation 142 are mapped”. The subsurface data includes the lithology and porosity, and the mapped fluids are the fluid saturation map) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions comprises:
determining, as a determined lithology and porosity 504 (Figure 5) of the reservoir formation and based on the resistivity data and the at least one of density data, PE factor data, GR data, or porosity indicator data, lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation (504); and determining, based on the determined lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation, the fluid saturation (¶0058) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions.
Regarding claim 12, Wessling, et al. teaches that determining lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation comprises: determining, based on at least one of a plurality of density-neutron cross-plots, a plurality of volume of shale equations, or a plurality of fluid saturation equations, the porosity (¶0035) of the reservoir formation.
Badri, et al. teaches determining lithology 504 and porosity 504 (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Wessling, et al. teaches that the resistivity data is
with respect to a plurality of depths of investigation (DOI) (Figure 4 shows true vertical depth, which is interpreted to be the same as the depths of investigation).
Regarding claim 15, Wessling, et al. teaches a computer-implemented system comprising:
one or more computers 15; and
one or more computer memory devices (¶0086 “The system may have components such as a processor, storage media, memory, input, output, communications link (wired, wireless, pulsed mud, optical or other), user interfaces, software programs, signal processors (digital or analog) and other such components (such as resistors, capacitors, inductors and others) to provide for operation and analyses of the apparatus and methods disclosed herein in any of several manners well-appreciated in the art”) interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions (described in ¶0086) that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the computer-implemented system to perform one or more operations comprising:
obtaining, from a resistivity logging tool 11 and at a plurality of time points (as described above) during a process of drilling a wellbore (Figure 1) in a reservoir formation 4, resistivity data of the reservoir formation in a first plurality of azimuthal directions (as described above);
determining, based on the resistivity data, fluid saturation of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions, the resistivity data being indicative of types of formation fluid in a pore space (as described above);
determining, based on the resistivity data, fluid saturation (Figure 8, as described above) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions across a plurality of layers at different distances from the wellbore (Figure 4 shows a resistivity map in layers (the striations along x axis measured depth) at different distances from the wellbore (along th e true vertical depth y axis from the trajectory of the wellbore, thus indicating distances away from the wellbore). The claims do not include limitations as to the orientation of the layers, therefore the different measurements taken along the measured depth can be considered the layers. See Figure A above, annotated from Figure 4, showing example layers and distances. These are not inclusive of all possible distances and layers);
determining, based on the fluid saturation of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions, a three-dimensional (3D) model of fluid saturation around the wellbore;
steering (as described above), based on the one or more steering commands, a downhole drilling assembly (including drill bit 8 and steering system 6) during the process of drilling the wellbore.
Wessling, et al. does not teach the fluid saturation map is a three-dimensional (3D) model of fluid saturation around the wellbore, and generating, based on the 3D model of fluid saturation around the wellbore, one or more steering commands for steering a drill bit during the process of drilling the wellbore.
However, Wessling, et al. does teach generating a 3D map (as described above), and generating steering commands (the strategic geosteering decisions ¶0018 and shown in Figure 13).
Badri, et al. teaches that it is well known in the art of directional drilling to create a 3D model 502 (shown in Figure 5) to create a planned well trajectory ¶0067, for steering system 108.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method step of Wessling, et al. to determine the model of fluid saturation in view of the method step of Badri, et al. to determine a 3D model with a reasonable expectation of success in planning well trajectory. The modification would necessarily create the 3D model of fluid saturation comprising a real time characterization of fluid dynamics of each type of the types of formation fluid in the pore space, for each of the plurality of time points, since Wessling, et al. teaches taking measurements at a plurality of time-point (Wessling, et al., Figure 4 with various time-points). The combination would also thus teach generating, based on the 3D model of fluid saturation around the wellbore, one or more steering commands for steering a drill bit during the process of drilling the wellbore, since Wessling teaches generating steering commands/ geosteering decisions (as described above), and suggests using 3D mapping.
Nikitenko, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use geostatistical interpolation for saturation measuring and geosteering system ¶0063, to estimate continuous profiles of resistivity (¶0063 “ to estimate the continuous profile of horizontal resistivity, such as Gregory-Newton interpolation formula, Lagrange polynomials, or Newton's interpolation method”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s method step of processing data to transform fluid saturation from one dimension to two dimensions in view of the geostatistical interpolation processing of Nikitenko, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a continuous profile of horizontal resistivity.
Regarding claim 16, Wessling, et al. teaches that obtaining the resistivity data
comprises obtaining the resistivity data and at least one of density data of the reservoir formation in a second plurality of azimuthal directions, photoelectric (PE) factor data of the reservoir formation in a third plurality of azimuthal directions, gamma ray (GR) data of the reservoir formation in a fourth plurality of azimuthal directions, or porosity indicator data of the reservoir formation converted from total neutron count.
Regarding claim 17, Badri, et al. teaches that determining the fluid saturation (¶0058 “analysis of the subsurface data can be used to construct and/or update a fluid saturation cube in which fluids in at least a portion of formation 142 are mapped”. The subsurface data includes the lithology and porosity, and the mapped fluids are the fluid saturation map) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions comprises:
determining, as a determined lithology and porosity 504 (Figure 5) of the reservoir formation and based on the resistivity data and the at least one of density data, PE factor data, GR data, or porosity indicator data, lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation (504); and determining, based on the determined lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation, the fluid saturation (¶0058) of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions.
Regarding claim 18, Wessling, et al. teaches that determining lithology and porosity of the reservoir formation comprises: determining, based on at least one of a plurality of density-neutron cross-plots, a plurality of volume of shale equations, or a plurality of fluid saturation equations, the porosity (¶0035) of the reservoir formation.
Badri, et al. teaches determining lithology 504 and porosity 504 (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 20, Wessling, et al. teaches that the resistivity data is with respect to a plurality of depths of investigation (DOI) (Figure 4 shows true vertical depth, which is interpreted to be the same as the depths of investigation).
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessling, et al. in view of Badri, et al. as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Nikitenko, et al. US2017/0254924.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19, Wessling, et al. in view of Badri, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that determining the fluid saturation of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions comprises performing a geostatistical interpolation processing on the fluid saturation to transform the fluid saturation from one dimension to two dimensions; and determining the fluid saturation of the reservoir formation in the first plurality of azimuthal directions comprises performing a geostatistical interpolation processing on the fluid saturation to transform the fluid saturation from one dimension to two dimensions.
Nikitenko, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use geostatistical interpolation for saturation measuring and geosteering system ¶0063, to estimate continuous profiles of resistivity (¶0063 “ to estimate the continuous profile of horizontal resistivity, such as Gregory-Newton interpolation formula, Lagrange polynomials, or Newton's interpolation method”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s method step of processing data to transform fluid saturation from one dimension to two dimensions in view of the geostatistical interpolation processing of Nikitenko, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a continuous profile of horizontal resistivity. The horizontal resistivity necessarily provides a 2D data set, since it provides measurements along a horizontal line.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessling, et al. in view of Badri, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quernheim, et al. US2009/0229882.
Regarding claim 7, Wessling, et al. in view of Badri, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that obtaining the resistivity data comprises obtaining the resistivity data through a high-bandwidth data transmission medium, wherein a bandwidth of the high-bandwidth data transmission medium is at least 56k bits per second.
Quernheim, et al. teaches that it is known in the art of wellbore drilling (Figure 1) to use a high-bandwidth data transmission medium of at least 56k bits per second (kbps) ¶0023 “has data transfer rates from fifty-seven thousand bits per second to one million bits per second”. The fifty-seven thousand bits per second is the same as 57k bits per second, which is greater than the claimed 56 kbps. This is used for high speed data transfer ¶0024.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s communication system and data transfer system in view of the high-bandwidth data transmission system of Quernheim, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve desired high speed data transmission in a wellbore drilling system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that Wessling and Badri do not teach a plurality of layers at different distances from the wellbore are not persuasive. Wessling Figure 4 shows a resistivity map in layers (the striations along x axis measured depth) at different distances from the wellbore (along the true vertical depth y axis from the trajectory of the wellbore, thus indicating distances away from the wellbore). The claims do not include limitations as to the orientation of the layers, therefore the different measurements taken along the measured depth can be considered the layers.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims are similarly refuted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones, et al. US2003/0182093 ¶005 teaches deterministic geostatistical methods such as kriging are known for generating wellbore estimates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 2/3/2026