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 § 103
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, 2, 5, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bestman (US 20240191604 A1) in view of “A Comparative Study of Reservoir Average Pressure Calculation, Using Flowing Pressure Data and Well test Analysis, in one of the Southwest Iranian Carbonate Fractured Oil Reservoir” to Zareiforoush
Regarding claim 1, Bestman discloses:
1. A method comprising: receiving a wellhead pressure and a flowrate of oil, gas, and water for the well during well production (paragraph 59 production data corresponding to wellhead pressure at given flow rate); calculating a bottom hole pressure (BHP) of the well based on the wellhead pressure and the flowrate of oil, gas, and water (paragraph 69 calculate bottomhole pressure based on surface production data, per paragraph 59 surface data includes pressure at given flow rate); calculating an average reservoir pressure of the well (fig. 5 506)
Bestman discloses calculating average reservoir pressure based on production data, but fails to disclose and Zareiforoush discloses calculating average reservoir pressure based on bottomhole pressure data (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine with Bestman by calculating average reservoir pressure basedon on bottomhole data. The motivation for the combination is to reduce OPEX i.e. operational expenses (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Bestman discloses: 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the breakpoints indicate one or more times during production at which the well interference events occurred (paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 5, Bestman discloses: 5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether there are any breakpoints comprises: selecting a proposed breakpoint; and verifying that the proposed breakpoint is representative of the well interference event (paragraph 41).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 and see paragraph 7 regarding CRM details.
Regarding claim 15, Bestman discloses: 15. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the breakpoints indicate one or more times during production at which the well interference events occurred (paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 16, Bestman discloses :16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions are further configured to: select a proposed breakpoint; and verify that the proposed breakpoint is representative of the well interference event for determining whether there are any breakpoints (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 18, Bestman discloses: 18. A method of forecasting production in a field of a plurality of wells, each well penetrating a reservoir in a subterranean formation, the method comprising: for each well of the plurality of wells: receiving a wellhead pressure and a flowrate of oil, gas, and water for the well during well production (paragraph 59); calculating a bottom hole pressure (BHP) of the well based on the wellhead pressure and the flowrate of oil, gas, and water (paragraph 69 calculate bottomhole pressure based on surface production data, per paragraph 59 surface data includes pressure at given flow rate); calculating an average reservoir pressure of the well (fig. 5 506)
Bestman discloses calculating average reservoir pressure based on production data, but fails to disclose and Zareiforoush discloses calculating average reservoir pressure based on bottomhole pressure data (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine with Bestman by calculating average reservoir pressure basedon on bottomhole data. The motivation for the combination is to reduce OPEX i.e. operational expenses (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Bestman discloses
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising quantifying an impact of one or more well interference events on production of one or more wells of the plurality of wells based on the production forecasts (fig. 5 508).
Regarding claim 20, Bestman discloses:
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising maintaining an inventory of detected well interference events and the impact of the well interference events on production of the plurality of wells in the field (paragraph 56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-13, 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record fails to disclose in combination with claim 1, wherein determining whether there are any breakpoints comprises: selecting a first proposed breakpoint; defining a first segment and a second segment of the dataset, the first segment having values of PI and cumulative fluid production preceding the first proposed breakpoint and the second segment having values of PI and cumulative fluid production following the first proposed breakpoint; fitting a first curve representing PI vs. cumulative fluid production to the first segment of the dataset and determining a quality of fit of the first curve to the first segment of the dataset; fitting a second curve representing PI versus cumulative fluid production to the second segment of the dataset and determining a quality of fit of the second curve to the second segment of the dataset; comparing the quality of fit of the first and second curves to a quality of fit of one or more other pairs of curves calculated for the dataset using one or more additional proposed breakpoints; and selecting the proposed breakpoint having a highest quality fit of the first and second curves. Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose in combination with claim 1, wherein determining whether there are any breakpoints comprises: selecting a first set of proposed breakpoints; defining multiple segments of the dataset, each segment having values of PI and cumulative fluid production, and each pair of adjacent segments of the multiple segments being separated by a proposed breakpoint of the first set of proposed breakpoints; fitting a curve representing PI versus cumulative fluid production to each segment of the multiple segments of the dataset to generate a first set of curves; determining a quality of fit of each curve in the first set of curves to a corresponding segment of the dataset; comparing the quality of fit of the first set of curves to a quality of fit of one or more additional sets of curves calculated for the dataset using one or more additional sets of proposed breakpoints; and selecting the set of proposed breakpoints having a highest quality fit of the sets of curves. Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein verifying that the proposed breakpoint is representative of the well interference event comprises: calculating water cut for the well; and determining that a change in at least one of the water cut at the proposed breakpoint and the PI at the proposed breakpoint exceeds a threshold. Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein verifying that the proposed breakpoint is representative of the well interference event comprises: identifying one or more effects of a workover operation at the well; and determining that one or more proposed breakpoints coinciding with the one or more effects are not representative of the well interference event. Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein verifying that the proposed breakpoint is representative of the well interference event comprises identifying one or more completion operations in a neighboring well immediately prior to the proposed breakpoint. Regarding claims 9-10, the prior art of record fails to disclose determining multiple production forecasts for the well based on multiple segments of the dataset corresponding to time segments prior to and after each breakpoint; and producing the fluids from the reservoir based, at least in part, on the multiple production forecasts. Regarding claims 11-12, the prior art of record discloses further comprising, upon determining that there is a first breakpoint representing the well interference event at the well: determining a first production forecast for the well based on a first segment of the dataset corresponding to a time segment prior to the first breakpoint; determining a second production forecast for the well based on a second segment of the dataset corresponding to a time segment after the first breakpoint; and producing the fluids from the reservoir based, at least in part, on the first production forecast and the second production forecast. Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose claim 1 further comprising upon determining that there are no breakpoints representing the well interference event at the well: determining a single production forecast for the well based on a full dataset; and producing the fluids from the reservoir based, at least in part, on the single production forecast. Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record fails to disclose in combination with claim 14, wherein the instructions are further configured to: determine multiple production forecasts for the well based on multiple segments of the dataset corresponding to time segments prior to and after each breakpoint; and produce the fluids from the reservoir based, at least in part, on the multiple production forecasts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Molina Ortiz (US 11308409 B1) discloses a system for detecting well interference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights