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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 11 is a system claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of determining, based on the DFOS data, well placement parameters for a second well. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts or mental processes. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are drilling a first well; inserting a fiber optic cable into the first well; sending a laser pulse down the fiber optic cable; capturing distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) data; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and outputting the well placement parameters for the second well; which is an extra solution activity such as outputting data. Regarding additional elements: a fiber optic cable, , an interrogator unit, a photodetector, processing circuitry and a memory, these elements are found to be merely generic computer hardware or generic components, e.g. see Fig. 12 and Spec. [0065]: “Machine (e.g., computer system) 1200 may include a hardware processor 1202 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a hardware processor core, or any combination thereof), a main memory 1204 and a static memory 1206, some or all of which may communicate with each other via an interlink (e.g., bus) 120”, and therefore merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “determining, based on the DFOS data, well placement parameters for a second well”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the outputted well placement parameters.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the composition structure and abstract steps of claims 1 and 11 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson et al. (US 2020/0149384 A1, hereinafter Ben), and further in view of Jaaskelainen et al. (US 2024/0036274 A1, hereinafter Jaa).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ben discloses a method/system for obtaining information corresponding to a well of a reservoir, the method comprising:
processing circuitry (see para. 0048);
memory (see para. 0177);
drilling a first well (see para. 0004);
inserting a fiber optic cable into the first well (see abstract);
sending a pulse (i.e. signals) down the fiber optic cable (see abstract);
capturing optic sensing data (see abstract);
determining, based on the optic data, well placement parameters for a second well (see para. 0194); and
outputting the well placement parameters for the second well (see para. 0188).
However, the main difference between Ben and the instant application is how the data is gathered. For instance, Ben fails to disclose sending a laser pulse down the fiber optic and capturing with a photodetector (i.e. light processed Raman etc.) distributed fiber optic sensing data.
Jaa discloses sending a laser pulse down the fiber optic and capturing with a photodetector distributed fiber optic sensing data (DFOS) (see para. 0037 and 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ben’s invention to use a DFOS system as described by Jaa for the benefit of using distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) and/or distributed temperature sensing (DTS) and/or distributed strain sensing (DSS) optionally with a point pressure and temperature (P/T) gauge that may be used to model flow distributions along wellbores (see Jaa para. 0037).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, wherein the first well is an injector and the second well is a producer (see para. 0179-0181).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, wherein the DFOS data comprises at least one of distributed temperature sensing (DTS) data, distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data, or distributed strain sensing (DSS) data (see Jaa para. 0037).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, wherein the DFOS data comprises low-frequency DAS (LF-DAS) data (see Jaa para. 0068).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, wherein the fiber optic cable is permanently cemented behind a casing of the well (see Ben abstract and fig. 16b).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, wherein the fiber optic cable is configured to withstand heat of 500F in the first well (see Jaa para. 0066).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, further comprising using the DFOS data to confirm a model of the reservoir (see Ben para. 0162).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, further comprising, determining, using the DFOS data, fracture initiation and flow allocation for the first well, and outputting the fracture initiation and flow allocation for the first well (see Jaa para. 0052, 0043, 0045 and 0079).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively, further comprising, characterizing, using the DFOS data, plug-and-perf completion design for the first well, and outputting the plug- and-perf completion design for the first well (see Jaa para. 0078-0079).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben, Jaa and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 2021/0332683 A1, hereinafter Hun).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Ben in view of Jaa discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 11 respectively. However, Ben in view fail to disclose further comprising, determining, using the DFOS data, stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) dimensions for the reservoir, and outputting the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) dimensions for the reservoir.
Hun discloses determining, using the DFOS data, stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) dimensions for the reservoir, and outputting the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) dimensions for the reservoir (see para. 0046 and 0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ben in view of Jaa’s invention to determine a stimulated reservoir volume for the benefit of predicting the progression of the fracturing job as well as determine optimum corrective actions to achieve specified objectives like e.g. size and shape of stimulated reservoir volumes and/or fractures and/or fracturing networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights