DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. 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 representative claim 16 recites:
A system, comprising:
one or more memory modules;
one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory modules to perform operations comprising:
obtaining bottom-hole pressure data, a bottom-hole fluid model, and bottom-hole temperature data as an injection fluid is introduced into a well opened at bottom-hole to a host reservoir, followed by a shut-in of the well during an injection-falloff test;
determining a mass rate of the injection fluid based on, at least in part, a wellhead fluid model and wellhead flow rate; and
determining bottom-hole flow rate data corresponding to wellhead flow rate data based on, at least in part, the mass rate and the bottom-hole fluid model.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
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. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: one or more memory modules;
one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory modules to perform operations comprising: obtaining bottom-hole pressure data, a bottom-hole fluid model, and bottom-hole temperature data as an injection fluid is introduced into a well opened at bottom-hole to a host reservoir, followed by a shut-in of the well during an injection-falloff test. The limitation “obtaining bottom-hole pressure data, a bottom-hole fluid model, and bottom-hole temperature data as an injection fluid is introduced into a well opened at bottom-hole to a host reservoir, followed by a shut-in of the well during an injection-falloff test” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a processor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitations “one or more memory modules; one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory modules to perform operations” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of storing and processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering data, storing, and processing using a generic computer/computing components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Wabash “Testing And Monitoring Plan 40 CFR 146.90”, (hereinafter, Wabash), (pages 7 and 11), and in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “General Technical Support Document For Injection And Geologic Sequestration Of Carbon Dioxide”, (hereinafter, EPA), (pages 9 and 42). Therefore, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8, 11-14, and 18-20, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 17, recite additional element of “wherein the injection fluid is a thermally-sensitive injection fluid”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a fluid) such that it amounts no more than a generic fluid. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Wabash (page 9), and EPA, (page 9). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7 and 15, recite additional element of "wherein the bottom-hole pressure and the bottom-hole temperature are obtained from at least one downhole gauge". However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering and/or collecting data using sensor), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Wabash (page 18), and EPA, (page 76). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 and 9, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Claim 8 recites the limitation “…the operating strategy in force….” However, the claim does not include any earlier recitation or limitation of a “the operating strategy in force” and as a result, it is not clear what element the description” the operating strategy in force” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabash “Testing And Monitoring Plan 40 CFR 146.90”, Sep. 2020 (hereinafter, Wabash), in view of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “General Technical Support Document For Injection And Geologic Sequestration Of Carbon Dioxide”, Nov 2010 (hereinafter, EPA).
10. Regarding claim 1, Wabash discloses a computer-implemented method that enables estimating reservoir properties, comprising:
obtaining, using at least one hardware processor, bottom-hole pressure data, a bottom-hole fluid model, and bottom-hole temperature data as an injection fluid is introduced into a well opened at bottom-hole to a host reservoir (page 8: the downhole pressure and temperature data will be used to perform the injectate density calculation… Density will be calculated using the correlation developed by Ouyang (i.e., bottom-hole fluid model). The correlation uses the temperature and pressure data collected to determine the carbon dioxide density. The density correlation is given by: p = AO+ Al *P + A2*P2 + A3*P3 + A4*P4… Where pis the density, Pis the pressure in psi, and A are coefficients determined by the equations: Ai = bi0 + bi1 *T + bi2*T2 + bi3*T3 + bi4*T4 T is the temperature in degrees Celsius and the b coefficients are presented in Table 3 and Table 4 below), followed by a shut-in of the well during an injection-falloff test (page 18: A pressure falloff test has a period of injection followed by a period of no-injection or shut-in… one week of relatively continuous injection will precede the shut-in po1i ion of the falloff test);
determining, using the at least one hardware processor, a mass rate (page 7: Flow will be monitored with a Coriolis mass flowmeter at the outlet of the pumping facility…pages 8-9: Flow rate is measured on a mass basis (lb/hr)….The mass flow rate will be divided by density… Volume basis (m3 /hr) = Mass basis (kg/hr) / density (kg/m3)….page 18: Pressure sensors used for this test will be the wellhead sensors and a downhole); and
determining, using the at least one hardware processor, bottom-hole flow rate data corresponding to wellhead flow rate data based on, at least in part, the mass rate and the bottom-hole fluid model (pages 8 and 9: the final volume basis will be calculated as follows: Volume basis (m3 /hr) = Mass basis (kg/hr) / density (kg/m3)…with density from downhole pressure and temperature).
Wabash does not disclose:
determining, using the at least one hardware processor, a mass rate of the injection fluid based on, at least in part, a wellhead fluid model and wellhead flow rate.
However, EPA discloses:
“a facility would measure the flow rate using either a mass flow meter or a volumetric flow meter. To determine the mass, the facility would … multiply the volumetric flow rate…by the density of CO2… To minimize the error in calculating the mass from CO2 volumetric readings, the application of an equation of state22 (EOS) more accurate than the ideal gas law is recommended (i.e., wellhead fluid model)” (see, pages 24-25, section 3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wabash to use determining, using the at least one hardware processor, a mass rate of the injection fluid based on, at least in part, a wellhead fluid model and wellhead flow rate as taught by EPA. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to minimize the error in calculating the mass rate (EPA, page 25).
11. Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
12. Regarding claim 2, Wabash in view of EPA disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Wabash further discloses wherein the injection fluid is a thermally-sensitive injection fluid (page 8: the downhole pressure and temperature data will be used to perform the injectate density calculation. The volume of carbon dioxide injected).
13. Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
14. Regarding claim 7, Wabash in view of EPA disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Wabash further discloses wherein the bottom-hole pressure and the bottom-hole temperature are obtained from at least one downhole gauge (pages 8 and 18: measured using a surface readout downhole gauge…The downhole pressure and temperature data will be used to perfo1m the injectate density calculation).
15. Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7.
16. Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabash, in view of EPA, in further view of EPA6 “EPA Region 6 UIC Pressure Falloff Testing Guideline”, Aug 2002 (hereinafter, EPA6).
17. Regarding claim 3, Wabash in view of EPA disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Wabash in view of EPA does not disclose:
wherein input data is automatically rendered on a log-log plot to realize at least one flow regime.
However, EPA6 discloses:
wherein input data is automatically rendered on a log-log plot to realize at least one flow regime (pages 7 and A-7: prepare a log-log diagnostic plot of the pressure and semilog derivative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wabash in view of EPA to use wherein input data is automatically rendered on a log-log plot to realize at least one flow regime as taught by EPA6. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to Identify the flow regimes present in the welltest (EPA6, page 7).
18. Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
19. Regarding claim 4, Wabash in view of EPA disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Wabash discloses wherein the bottom-hole flow rate and obtained bottom-hole pressure as disclosed above.
Wabash in view of EPA does not disclose:
wherein the bottom-hole flow rate and obtained bottom-hole pressure are used to characterize the host reservoir.
However, EPA6 discloses:
wherein the bottom-hole flow rate and obtained bottom-hole pressure are used to characterize the host reservoir (page A-7: flow regimes are mathematical relationships between pressure, rate, and time. Flow regimes provide a visualization of what goes on in the reservoir. Individual flow regimes have characteristic slopes and a sequencing order on the log-log plot...The critical flow regime is radial flow from which all analysis calculations are performed. During radial flow, the pressure responses recorded are representative of the reservoir, not the wellbore).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wabash in view of EPA to use wherein the bottom-hole flow rate and obtained bottom-hole pressure are used to characterize the host reservoir as taught by EPA6. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to analyze the relationship between bottom-hole flow rate and bottom-hole pressure of the reservoir (EPA6, page A-7).
20. Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
21. Regarding claim 6, Wabash in view of EPA disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Wabash discloses the bottom-hole pressure, the bottom-hole flow rate, and the bottom-hole temperature (pages 7-8: pressure, temperature, and flow rate will
have continuous electronic monitoring with signals transmitted back to a master control system).
Wabash in view of EPA does not disclose:
synchronizing the bottom-hole pressure, the bottom-hole flow rate, and the bottom-hole temperature to enhance log-log diagnostics.
However, EPA6 discloses:
synchronizing the bottom-hole pressure, the bottom-hole flow rate, and the bottom-hole temperature to enhance log-log diagnostics (page A-7: plot the pressure and semilog derivative versus time on a log-log diagnostic plot. Use the appropriate time function based on the rate history of the injection period preceding the falloff…
flow regimes are mathematical relationships between pressure, rate, and time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wabash in view of EPA to use synchronizing the bottom-hole pressure, the bottom-hole flow rate, and the bottom-hole temperature to enhance log-log diagnostics as taught by EPA6. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to analyze the relationship between bottom-hole flow rate and bottom-hole pressure of the reservoir (EPA6, page A-7).
22. Regarding claims 14, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
23. Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabash, in view of EPA, in view of EPA6, in further view of Voelker US 8087292 (hereinafter, Voelker).
24. Regarding claim 5, Wabash in view of EPA in view of EPA6 disclose the computer implemented method of claim 4, as disclosed above.
Wabash in view of EPA in view of EPA6 does not disclose:
wherein characterizing the host reservoir comprises determining a size of the host reservoir, a shape of the host reservoir, an ability of the host reservoir to produce fluids, or any combinations thereof.
However, Voelker discloses:
wherein characterizing the host reservoir comprises determining a size of the host reservoir, a shape of the host reservoir, an ability of the host reservoir to produce fluids, or any combinations thereof (Abstract: determining the reservoir permeability (i.e., ability to produce fluid) and geometry (i.e., shape and size)of the tested formation based on an analysis of the measured pressure injection data and the measured pressure falloff data using a well pressure model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wabash in view of EPA in view of EPA6 to use wherein input data is automatically rendered on a log-log plot to realize at least one flow regime as taught by Voelker. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determining reservoir permeability and geometry of a subterranean formation (Voelker, Abstract).
25. Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 5.
26. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabash, in view of EPA, in further view of Mavor et al. “Alberta Multiwell Micro-Pilot Testing for CBM Properties, Enhanced Methane Recovery and CO2 Storage Potential”, 2004 (hereinafter, Mavor).
27. Regarding claim 8, Wabash in view of EPA disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Wabash further discloses pressure fall-off testing will be performed during injection at least every five years (page 17).
Wabash in view of EPA does not disclose:
tying the well into a production stream, wherein the well is managed in the production stream according to the operating strategy in force.
However, Mavor discloses:
tying the well into a production stream, wherein the well is managed in the production stream according to the operating strategy in force.
(page 2: We did not have access to the production history of the well until we returned it to production for a short test… After the falloff test, FBV 4A was returned to production to determine the effect of the CO2 upon productivity and reservoir properties).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wabash in view of EPA to use tying the well into a production stream, wherein the well is managed in the production stream according to the operating strategy in force.
as taught by Mavor. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to return the well to its operating stream whether production or injection after completing the falloff test (Mavor, page 2).
Conclusion
28. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights