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 claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the
four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical
concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an
abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ''additional elements''.
A method comprising:
accessing data for a subsurface region that includes horizons that extend to a fault, wherein the data include at least seismic data;
selecting a portion of the data that is within a distance range of the fault;
creating local horizon models for the horizons using at least the portion of
the data;
generating on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a
fault model of the fault;
computing two-dimensional stratigraphy for a side of the fault based on at least a portion of the on-fault horizon data; and
performing a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Steps of “creating local horizon models for the horizons using at least the
portion of the data”, “generating on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a fault model of the fault”, “computing two-dimensional stratigraphy for a side of the fault based on at least a portion of the on-fault horizon data”, and “performing a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concepts grouping.
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Limitations of “accessing data for a subsurface region that includes horizons that extend to a fault, wherein the data include at least seismic data”, and “selecting a portion of the data that is within a distance range of the fault”, are treated as an extra solution activity recited in generality (e.g., mere data gathering).
The preamble of Claim 1: “A method comprising” is a generically recited preamble.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular step are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are extra-solution activities well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20180347320 to Renaudeau et al. (hereinafter Renaudeau) and US20220163692 to Harris et al. (hereinafter Harris).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claim 1, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Regarding the independent Claim 19: same considerations were applied to independent Claim 19.
Claim 19 has the following additional elements: “a processor”, and “a memory”. These additional elements are generally recited and do not qualify as a particular machine.
The preamble of Claim 19: “A system comprising” is a generically recited preamble.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One), recite no additional elements reflecting a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and fail a “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Regarding independent Claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, more specifically, non-transitory tangible media. Claim 20 presents computer readable storage medium having a computer program. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically 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, particularly when the specification is silent See MPEP 2111.01.
As currently claimed, the language “computer readable storage medium” does not specify if the computer readable medium is "transitory" or "non-transitory" and therefore claim 20 is considered to be non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.1-7.
In order to overcome this rejection, the following language is suggested: “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”. In addition, the examiner suggests applicant to check the eligibility analysis of claims 1-19 (see rejection above) for any potential rejection of claim 20 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20120158376 to Freeman et al. (hereinafter Freeman) in view of US20180347320 to Renaudeau et al. (hereinafter Renaudeau).
Regarding Claim 1: Freeman discloses:
“A method comprising: accessing data for a subsurface region that includes horizons that extend to a fault, wherein the data include at least seismic data” (para 0053 – “Referring again to the data block 210, the well tops or drill hole data 212 may include spatial localization, and optionally surface dip, of an interface between two geological formations or of a subsurface discontinuity such as a geological fault; the seismic interpretation data 214 may include a set of points, lines or surface patches interpreted from seismic reflection data, and representing interfaces between media (e.g., geological formations in which seismic wave velocity differs) or subsurface discontinuities”);
“selecting a portion of the data that is within a distance range of the fault” (Abstract – “A fault seal analysis system with a data input which receives data pertaining to one or more physical parameters of a rock stratigraphy at or near a fault and means for analysing the data”);
“creating local horizon models for the horizons using at least the portion of the data” (Abstract – “A fault seal analysis system with a data input which receives data pertaining to one or more physical parameters of a rock stratigraphy at or near a fault and means for analysing the data by applying one or more algorithm to create a model of the geometry and physical properties of the rock at or near the fault”; Claim 1 – “analysis means adapted to I. apply one or more algorithms to create a model of the geometry and physical properties of the rock at or near the fault, … II. create one or more data volumes or models of the geometric and physical parameters”);
“computing two-dimensional stratigraphy for a side of the fault based on at least a portion of the on-fault horizon data” (para 0086 – “FIG. 14 shows a further figure of an embodiment. The GUI presents four possible stratigraphy maps which have been calculated using different calculated/modelled stratigraphic scenarios (data volumes) 115, 117, 119 and 121.”; para 0087 – “The diagram of FIG. 15 illustrates one embodiment 125 in which a single stratigraphy 127 is required and provided as either two-dimensional panel data 129 or one-dimensional well data 131.”).
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“generating on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a fault model of the fault; and performing a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“generating on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a fault model of the fault” (para 0061 – “As to the one or more boundary representations 232, they may include a numerical representation (i.e. data, added by examiner) in which a subsurface model is partitioned into various closed units representing geological layers (i.e. horizons, added by examiner) and fault blocks where an individual unit may be defined by its boundary and, optionally, by a set of internal boundaries such as fault surfaces”; para 0135 – “interpretation and model building based thereon can be based on stratigraphy, such as event stratigraphy, which involves correlation of sedimentary sequences via marker beds or event horizons. These beds and horizons represent synchronous surfaces that are surfaces believed to have developed at the same time, and, as a consequence, they may separate an older sequence below them from a younger sequence above them”; see also paras 0090 and 0093); and
“performing a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault” (para 0153 – “the plot 700 can be a plot that includes layers of a model of a geologic region, which may be a mesh based model (i.e. two-dimensional, added by examiner), a meshless model, etc. Such a model can be utilized for one or more purposes, for example, to perform a workflow that includes simulating physical phenomena via a simulator (e.g., a reservoir simulator, etc.) to perform one or more field actions using model-based simulation results. ”; para 0211 – “a method can include simulating fluid flow in a geologic region (i.e. one or more physical phenomena, added by examiner) via a computational simulator that utilizes a simulation model that is based at least in part on a structural model where accuracy of the structural model is enhanced via a WCM technique”; see also claims 4-5 and para 0213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to use the simulation of faults and stratigraphy to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 2: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the simulation includes un-faulting of at least a portion of the subsurface region”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the simulation includes un-faulting of at least a portion of the subsurface region” (para 0066 – “As to geomechanical simulation 255, it may include simulation of the deformation of rocks under boundary conditions. Such a simulation may be used, for example, to assess compaction of a reservoir (e.g., associated with its depletion, when hydrocarbons are pumped from the porous and deformable rock that composes the reservoir). As an example a geomechanical simulation may be used for a variety of purposes such as, for example, prediction of fracturing, reconstruction of the paleo-geometries of the reservoir as they were prior to tectonic deformations (i.e. un-faulting, added by examiner) etc.”; para 0093 – “two geometrically “touching” mesh elements that are located on different sides of a fault may be deemed not topological neighbors, for example, as a mesh may be “unsewn” along fault surfaces (e.g., to define a set of elements or a mesh on one side of the fault and another set of elements or a mesh on the other side of the fault)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to use the simulation of faults to recreate the pre-fault conditions (i.e. un-faulting) to better understand the geological history of the researched area and make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 3: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the simulation includes fluid flow simulation”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the simulation includes fluid flow simulation” (para 0211 – “a method can include simulating fluid flow in a geologic region via a computational simulator that utilizes a simulation model that is based at least in part on a structural model”; see also Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to include the fluid flow into the simulation since the accurate modelling of fluid flow is critical for understanding the physical processes taking place in the reservoir.
Regarding Claim 5: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman further discloses:
“comprising computing two-dimensional stratigraphy for an opposite side of the fault based on another portion of the on-fault horizon data” (para 0015 – “For a given fault, for a known depth and throw variation over a fault surface a stratigraphy model can be chosen and each data volume that is generated is designed to capture a range of uncertainties in the different parameters and allow the user to interrogate these using a fault property diagram”; Claim 12 – “A fault seal analysis system as claimed in claim 2, wherein a first algorithm is applied to model stratigraphic variation based upon the input data”).
Regarding Claim 6: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 5.
Freeman further discloses:
“comprising determining a fault throw for the fault based on the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the opposite side of the fault” (para 0015 – “For a given fault, for a known depth and throw variation over a fault surface a stratigraphy model can be chosen and each data volume that is generated is designed to capture a range of uncertainties in the different parameters and allow the user to interrogate these using a fault property diagram”; para 0072 – “The shale gouge ratio estimates the percentage of clay at any point in the fault zone from the mixing of the host lithology. The algorithm calculates the net clay within the lithology that is displaced past each point in the fault by taking the sum of the layer thickness multiplied by the clay percentage divided by fault throw”).
Regarding Claim 7: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the on-fault horizon data include on-fault horizon data for the one side of the fault and on-fault horizon data for an opposite side of the fault”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the on-fault horizon data include on-fault horizon data for the one side of the fault and on-fault horizon data for an opposite side of the fault” (para 0053 – “Referring again to the data block 210, the well tops or drill hole data 212 may include spatial localization, and optionally surface dip, of an interface between two geological formations or of a subsurface discontinuity such as a geological fault… the outcrop interpretation data 216 may include a set of lines or points, optionally associated with measured dip, representing boundaries between geological formations or geological faults”; para 0054 – “As to a structural model, it may be, for example, a set of gridded or meshed surfaces representing one or more interfaces between geological formations (e.g., horizon surfaces, unconformal surfaces, geobodies, etc.) or mechanical discontinuities (fault surfaces) in the subsurface. As an example, a structural model may include some information about one or more topological relationships between surfaces (e.g. fault A truncates fault B, fault B intersects fault C, etc.)”; see also paras 0055 and 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 8: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein generating the two-dimensional stratigraphy includes implementing a smoothing technique”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein generating the two-dimensional stratigraphy includes implementing a smoothing technique” (para 0101 – “computation of an implicit function may be performed in a manner that aims to honor two types of constraints: (1) the minimization of the misfit between the interpretation data and the interpolated surfaces and (2) a regularization constraint that aims to ensure smoothness and monotonicity of an interpolated property”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 9: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 8.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the smoothing technique includes regularization”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the smoothing technique includes regularization” (para 0088 – “as the background mesh may be discontinuous along faults, interpolation may be discontinuous as well; noting that “regularization constraints” may be included, for example, for constraining smoothness of interpolated values”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 10: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 9.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the regularization includes Hessian-based regularization”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the regularization includes Hessian-based regularization” (para 0101 – “schematically, computation of an implicit function may be performed in a manner that aims to honor two types of constraints: (1) the minimization of the misfit between the interpretation data and the interpolated surfaces and (2) a regularization constraint that aims to ensure smoothness and monotonicity of an interpolated property (interpreted as including the Hessian-based regularization, added by examiner).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 11: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 8.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the smoothing technique utilizes at least a second derivative in space”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the smoothing technique utilizes at least a second derivative in space” (para 0132 – “the data-based process block 554 can include implementing a weighted curvature minimization (WCM) criterion to one or more spatially located data points, for example, while also implementing one or more smoothness criteria. In such an example, the WCM criterion can allow for a localized increase in a gradient of an implicit function within a neighborhood of a spatially located data point. Such an approach can help to reduce inaccurate implicit function values, which may be geologically unrealistic).”; see also paras 0088 and 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 12: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the subsurface region includes one or more additional faults”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the subsurface region includes one or more additional faults” (Claim 4 – “The method of claim 1 wherein the geologic region comprises at least one fault”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 15: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“after generating the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault, comprising performing a horizon modeling process for the horizons to generate a horizon model that extends beyond the local horizon models”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“after generating the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault, comprising performing a horizon modeling process for the horizons to generate a horizon model that extends beyond the local horizon models” (para 0084 – “a process for creating a geological model may include: building an unstructured faulted 2D mesh (e.g., if a goal is to build a cross section of a model) or a 3D mesh from a watertight representation of a fault network; representing, according to an implicit function-based volume attribute, stratigraphy by performing interpolations on the built mesh; and cutting the built mesh based at least in part on iso-surfaces of the attribute to generate a volume representation of geological layers (i.e. horizons, added by examiner). Such a process may include outputting one or more portions of the volume representation of the geological layers (e.g., for a particular layer, a portion of a layer, etc.)”; see also Claims 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 16: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 15.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“comprising performing a quality assessment of a model of the subsurface region using the fault model and the two-dimensional stratigraphy”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“comprising performing a quality assessment of a model of the subsurface region using the fault model and the two-dimensional stratigraphy” (para 0084 – “a process for creating a geological model may include: building an unstructured faulted 2D mesh (e.g., if a goal is to build a cross section of a model) or a 3D mesh from a watertight representation of a fault network; representing, according to an implicit function-based volume attribute, stratigraphy by performing interpolations on the built mesh; and cutting the built mesh based at least in part on iso-surfaces of the attribute to generate a volume representation of geological layers. Such a process may include outputting one or more portions of the volume representation of the geological layers (e.g., for a particular layer, a portion of a layer, etc.)”; see also para 0135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 17: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the fault model includes a mesh and wherein the mesh includes values representing the two-dimensional stratigraphy”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the fault model includes a mesh and wherein the mesh includes values representing the two-dimensional stratigraphy” (para 0084 – “a process for creating a geological model may include: building an unstructured faulted 2D mesh (e.g., if a goal is to build a cross section of a model) or a 3D mesh from a watertight representation of a fault network; representing, according to an implicit function-based volume attribute, stratigraphy by performing interpolations on the built mesh; and cutting the built mesh based at least in part on iso-surfaces of the attribute to generate a volume representation of geological layers. Such a process may include outputting one or more portions of the volume representation of the geological layers (e.g., for a particular layer, a portion of a layer, etc.)”; see also para 0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 18: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the data include well log data, wherein the well log data include formation top data indicative of locations of one or more of the horizons”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“wherein the data include well log data, wherein the well log data include formation top data indicative of locations of one or more of the horizons” (para 0032 – “Some data may be involved in building an initial mesh and, thereafter, a model, a corresponding mesh, etc. may optionally be updated in response to model output, changes in time, physical phenomena, additional data, etc. Data may include one or more of the following: depth or thickness maps and fault geometries and timing from seismic, remote-sensing, electromagnetic, gravity, outcrop and well log data. Furthermore, data may include depth and thickness maps stemming from facies variations”; see also Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 19: Freeman discloses:
“A system comprising: a processor; processor-executable instructions stored in the memory and executable to instruct the system to” (para 0042 – “there is provided a computer program comprising program instructions for implementing the system in accordance with the first aspect of the invention”; see also Claim 28);
“access data for a subsurface region that includes horizons that extend to a fault, wherein the data include at least seismic data” (para 0053 – “Referring again to the data block 210, the well tops or drill hole data 212 may include spatial localization, and optionally surface dip, of an interface between two geological formations or of a subsurface discontinuity such as a geological fault; the seismic interpretation data 214 may include a set of points, lines or surface patches interpreted from seismic reflection data, and representing interfaces between media (e.g., geological formations in which seismic wave velocity differs) or subsurface discontinuities”);
“select a portion of the data that is within a distance range of the fault” (Abstract – “A fault seal analysis system with a data input which receives data pertaining to one or more physical parameters of a rock stratigraphy at or near a fault and means for analysing the data”);
“create local horizon models for the horizons using at least the portion of the data” (Abstract – “A fault seal analysis system with a data input which receives data pertaining to one or more physical parameters of a rock stratigraphy at or near a fault and means for analysing the data by applying one or more algorithm to create a model of the geometry and physical properties of the rock at or near the fault”; Claim 1 – “analysis means adapted to I. apply one or more algorithms to create a model of the geometry and physical properties of the rock at or near the fault, … II. create one or more data volumes or models of the geometric and physical parameters”);
“compute two-dimensional stratigraphy for a side of the fault based on at least a portion of the on-fault horizon data” (para 0086 – “FIG. 14 shows a further figure of an embodiment. The GUI presents four possible stratigraphy maps which have been calculated using different calculated/modelled stratigraphic scenarios (data volumes) 115, 117, 119 and 121.”; para 0087 – “The diagram of FIG. 15 illustrates one embodiment 125 in which a single stratigraphy 127 is required and provided as either two-dimensional panel data 129 or one-dimensional well data 131.”).
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“a memory operatively coupled to the processor; generate on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a fault model of the fault; and perform a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“a memory operatively coupled to the processor” (para 0003 – “A system can include a processor; memory operatively coupled to the processor; processor-executable instructions stored in the memory to instruct the system”)
“generating on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a fault model of the fault” (para 0061 – “As to the one or more boundary representations 232, they may include a numerical representation (i.e. data, added by examiner) in which a subsurface model is partitioned into various closed units representing geological layers (i.e. horizons, added by examiner) and fault blocks where an individual unit may be defined by its boundary and, optionally, by a set of internal boundaries such as fault surfaces”; para 0135 – “interpretation and model building based thereon can be based on stratigraphy, such as event stratigraphy, which involves correlation of sedimentary sequences via marker beds or event horizons. These beds and horizons represent synchronous surfaces that are surfaces believed to have developed at the same time, and, as a consequence, they may separate an older sequence below them from a younger sequence above them”; see also paras 0090 and 0093); and
“performing a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault” (para 0153 – “the plot 700 can be a plot that includes layers of a model of a geologic region, which may be a mesh based model (i.e. two-dimensional, added by examiner), a meshless model, etc. Such a model can be utilized for one or more purposes, for example, to perform a workflow that includes simulating physical phenomena via a simulator (e.g., a reservoir simulator, etc.) to perform one or more field actions using model-based simulation results. ”; para 0211 – “a method can include simulating fluid flow in a geologic region (i.e. one or more physical phenomena, added by examiner) via a computational simulator that utilizes a simulation model that is based at least in part on a structural model where accuracy of the structural model is enhanced via a WCM technique”; see also claims 4-5 and para 0213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to use the simulation of faults and stratigraphy to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 20: Freeman discloses:
“One or more computer-readable storage media comprising processor-executable instructions executable by a system to instruct the system to” (para 0042 – “there is provided a computer program comprising program instructions for implementing the system in accordance with the first aspect of the invention”; see also Claim 28);
“access data for a subsurface region that includes horizons that extend to a fault, wherein the data include at least seismic data” (para 0053 – “Referring again to the data block 210, the well tops or drill hole data 212 may include spatial localization, and optionally surface dip, of an interface between two geological formations or of a subsurface discontinuity such as a geological fault; the seismic interpretation data 214 may include a set of points, lines or surface patches interpreted from seismic reflection data, and representing interfaces between media (e.g., geological formations in which seismic wave velocity differs) or subsurface discontinuities”);
“select a portion of the data that is within a distance range of the fault” (Abstract – “A fault seal analysis system with a data input which receives data pertaining to one or more physical parameters of a rock stratigraphy at or near a fault and means for analysing the data”);
“create local horizon models for the horizons using at least the portion of the data” (Abstract – “A fault seal analysis system with a data input which receives data pertaining to one or more physical parameters of a rock stratigraphy at or near a fault and means for analysing the data by applying one or more algorithm to create a model of the geometry and physical properties of the rock at or near the fault”; Claim 1 – “analysis means adapted to I. apply one or more algorithms to create a model of the geometry and physical properties of the rock at or near the fault, … II. create one or more data volumes or models of the geometric and physical parameters”);
“compute two-dimensional stratigraphy for a side of the fault based on at least a portion of the on-fault horizon data” (para 0086 – “FIG. 14 shows a further figure of an embodiment. The GUI presents four possible stratigraphy maps which have been calculated using different calculated/modelled stratigraphic scenarios (data volumes) 115, 117, 119 and 121.”; para 0087 – “The diagram of FIG. 15 illustrates one embodiment 125 in which a single stratigraphy 127 is required and provided as either two-dimensional panel data 129 or one-dimensional well data 131.”).
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“generate on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a fault model of the fault; and perform a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault”.
However, Renaudeau discloses:
“generating on-fault horizon data using the local horizon models and a fault model of the fault” (para 0061 – “As to the one or more boundary representations 232, they may include a numerical representation (i.e. data, added by examiner) in which a subsurface model is partitioned into various closed units representing geological layers (i.e. horizons, added by examiner) and fault blocks where an individual unit may be defined by its boundary and, optionally, by a set of internal boundaries such as fault surfaces”; para 0135 – “interpretation and model building based thereon can be based on stratigraphy, such as event stratigraphy, which involves correlation of sedimentary sequences via marker beds or event horizons. These beds and horizons represent synchronous surfaces that are surfaces believed to have developed at the same time, and, as a consequence, they may separate an older sequence below them from a younger sequence above them”; see also paras 0090 and 0093); and
“performing a simulation of one or more physical phenomena for the subsurface region using at least the fault model of the fault and the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault” (para 0153 – “the plot 700 can be a plot that includes layers of a model of a geologic region, which may be a mesh based model (i.e. two-dimensional, added by examiner), a meshless model, etc. Such a model can be utilized for one or more purposes, for example, to perform a workflow that includes simulating physical phenomena via a simulator (e.g., a reservoir simulator, etc.) to perform one or more field actions using model-based simulation results. ”; para 0211 – “a method can include simulating fluid flow in a geologic region (i.e. one or more physical phenomena, added by examiner) via a computational simulator that utilizes a simulation model that is based at least in part on a structural model where accuracy of the structural model is enhanced via a WCM technique”; see also claims 4-5 and para 0213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman, as taught by Renaudeau, in order to use the simulation of faults and stratigraphy to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Renaudeau and in further view of US20220163692 to Harris et al. (hereinafter Harris’692).
Regarding Claim 4: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 3.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“comprising determining fault transmissibility for the fault based at least in part on the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault”.
However, Harris’692 discloses:
“comprising determining fault transmissibility for the fault based at least in part on the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault” (para 0040 – “The initial model may be gridded, i.e., partitioned into cells, which may be structured or unstructured, as at 206. Transmissibility and/or other fault properties may be determined for the subterranean volume, e.g., on a cell-by-cell basis, as at 208. Once the model is populated with the cell and fault properties, fluid flow may be simulated, as at 210.”; see also para 0062 and Claims 11 and 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Harris’692, in order to use the simulation of faults and stratigraphy to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Renaudeau and in further view of US20210011191 to Harris et al. (hereinafter Harris’191).
Regarding Claim 13: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 12.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein at least one of the one or more additional faults meets the fault”.
However, Harris’191 discloses:
“wherein at least one of the one or more additional faults meets the fault” (para 0029 – “where a sedimentary basin (e.g., subsurface region) includes various types of features (e.g., stratigraphic layers, faults, etc.), nodes, cells, etc. of a grid may represent, or be assigned to, such features. In turn, discretized equations may better represent the sedimentary basin and its features”; para 0030 – “a grid may conform to structural features such as, for example, Y-faults, X-faults, low-angle unconformities, salt bodies, intrusions, etc. (e.g., geological discontinuities), to more fully capture complexity of a geological model. As an example, a grid may optionally conform to stratigraphy (e.g., in addition to one or more geological discontinuities)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Harris’191, in order to use the simulation of faults and stratigraphy to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Regarding Claim 14: Freeman/Renaudeau combination discloses the method of Claim 12.
Freeman does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault is bound by one of the one or more additional faults”.
However, Harris’191 discloses:
“wherein the two-dimensional stratigraphy for the side of the fault is bound by one of the one or more additional faults” (Fig. 6; para 0077 – “FIG. 6 shows various structural model representations of a geologic environment, specifically a structural model 610, a deposition space model 620, a sliced model 630 and a deposition grid (depogrid) model 640”; para 0080 – “In FIG. 6, the various models provide a description of the creation of a depogrid (e.g., a type of model) from a structural model. The structural model 610 in geological space is transformed (e.g., one-to-one and invertible mapping) to a depositional space (depospace) model 620 in which conformable horizons are horizontal planes (interpreted as two-dimensional stratigraphy, added by examiner) (e.g., according to depositional processes of material)”; para 0083 – “A mentioned with respect to FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, one approach to producing structured grids is referred to as pillar gridding, in which faults can be smooth surfaces and the grid has a specified number of cells in the three grid directions. Such gridding approaches demand simplification of the faults in complex geological settings”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Freeman/ Renaudeau combination, as taught by Harris’191, in order to use the simulation of faults and stratigraphy to make searching for hydrocarbons faster and more efficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20240111067 to Possee et al. (hereinafter Possee) discloses faulted seismic horizon mapping.
US20210149066 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu) discloses reflection seismology internal multiple estimation.
US6014343 to Graf et al. (hereinafter Graf) discloses automatic non-artificially extended fault surface based horizon modeling system.
US20170184760 to Li et al. (hereinafter Li) discloses device, system and method for a structure and stratigraphy preserving transformation of a geological model.
US20190243017 to Klinger (hereinafter Klinger) discloses geologic Structural Model Generation.
US6018498 to Neff et al. (hereinafter Neff) discloses automated seismic fault detection and picking.
US20130262052 to Mallet et al. (hereinafter Mallet) discloses system and method for generating an implicit model of geological horizons.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am CT - 5:30pm CT, Monday through Friday.
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 on 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights