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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Fig. 1 element 110. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2 element 214 and Fig. 3 element 300. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 17, it recites the limitation “An article of manufacture configured to store a set of instructions that may be performed on a computer,” in line 1-2 which would be better as “An article of manufacture configured to store a set of instructions performed on a computer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-9 and 17-20 recite steps or acts including comparing … to the field-based fluid distributions; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 10-16 is directed to an article of manufacture which is a product therefore is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claim 1 and 10 recite:
obtaining input data for the geological stratum (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
obtaining field-based fluid distributions for a wellsite within the geological stratum (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
preparing one of an assumed reservoir architecture, a well placement, a well completion technique, a well stimulation strategy and a well production plan for the wellsite within the geological stratum (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
performing a dynamic simulation of a charge process for the geological stratum for the one of the assumed reservoir architecture, the well placement, the well completion technique, the well stimulation strategy and the well production plan for the wellsite to produce a result (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described);
comparing the result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described);
ending the method when the comparing of the result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite is below a user-defined threshold value (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described); and
revising at least one of the reservoir architecture, a well placement, a well completion technique, a well stimulation strategy and a well production plan for the wellsite and the dynamic simulation of the charge process and returning to perform another dynamic simulation and comparing the result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite until the ending of the method (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described: repetition of mental process ).
The claim 17 recites:
obtaining input data for an initial computer model of a hydrocarbon field (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
obtaining field-based fluid distributions for a wellsite (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
preparing a computer model of at least one of an assumed reservoir architecture, well placement, well completion, well stimulation and well production for the wellsite (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
performing a computer-based dynamic simulation of a charge process for the model to produce a model result (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described);
comparing the model result to field-based values for the wellsite (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described);
ending the method when the comparing of model result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite is below a threshold value to produce a final result (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described); and
revising at least one of the reservoir architecture, well placement, well completion, well stimulation and well production for the wellsite and the dynamic simulation of the charge process and returning to perform another dynamic simulation and comparing of the model result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite until the ending of the method (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion as described: repetition of mental process).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “non-volatile memory” (Claim 8) and “An article of manufacture configured to store a set of instructions that may be performed on a computer, the article of manufacture having a non-volatile memory” (Claim 10) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “computer”/”memory” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional element of “computer-based” (Claim 17)” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further claim 1, 10 and 17 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “obtaining input data for an initial computer model of a hydrocarbon field (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
obtaining field-based fluid distributions for a wellsite (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
preparing a computer model of at least one of an assumed reservoir architecture, well placement, well completion, well stimulation and well production for the wellsite (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use)”.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “non-volatile memory” (Claim 8) and “An article of manufacture configured to store a set of instructions that may be performed on a computer, the article of manufacture having a non-volatile memory” (Claim 10) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional element of “computer-based” (Claim 17)” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further claim 1, 10 and 17 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, such as storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05 (d) II iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) and receiving or transmitting data (MPEP 2106.05 (d) II i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))): “obtaining input data for an initial computer model of a hydrocarbon field (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
obtaining field-based fluid distributions for a wellsite (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use);
preparing a computer model of at least one of an assumed reservoir architecture, well placement, well completion, well stimulation and well production for the wellsite (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use)”.
Further dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 recite:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the input data includes at least one seismic survey (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the input data includes at least one of geology logs and petrophysical logs (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the input data includes core sample data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the input data includes fluid sample data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the input data includes pressure test data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the charge process occurs over a period of fluid exposure to geological processes (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
8. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: saving a final reservoir architecture in a non-volatile memory (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: printing characteristics of a final reservoir architecture (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
11. The article of manufacture according to claim 10, wherein the method is performed wherein the input data includes at least one seismic survey (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
12. The article of manufacture according to claim 10, wherein the method is performed wherein the input data includes at least one of geology logs and petrophysical logs (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
13. The article of manufacture according to claim 10, wherein the method is performed such that the input data includes core sample data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
14. The article of manufacture according to claim 10, wherein the input data includes fluid sample data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use.
15. The article of manufacture according to claim 10, wherein the input data includes pressure test data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
16. The article of manufacture according to claim 10, wherein the charge process occurring in the method occurs over a period of fluid exposure to geological processes (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
18. The method according to claim 17, wherein the field-based values are used in at least one of field development planning, well placement and construction, wellbore completion, wellbore stimulation and wellbore production activities (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
19. The method according to claim 17, wherein the obtaining input data includes obtaining petrophysics data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
20. The method according to claim 17, wherein the obtaining input data includes obtaining fluid composition data, optical density data, gas to oil ratio data, mass density data, viscosity biomarker data, and isotope pressure data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauerauf et al. (US 20190293835 A1) and further in view of Gurpinar et al. (US 7953585 B2).
As per Claim 1, 10 and 17, Kauerauf et al. teaches (Claim 1) a method of evaluation of a geological stratum through simulation of a fluid charge (Abstract), comprising:
(Claim 10) an article of manufacture configured to store a set of instructions that may be performed on a computer, the article of manufacture having a non-volatile memory, the set of instructions comprising a method of evaluation of a geological stratum through simulation of a fluid charge (Abstract, Fig. 1 &10) comprising:
(Claim 17) a method for conducting hydrocarbon recovery operations through simulation of a fluid charge (Abstract), comprising:
(Claim 1, 10 and 17) obtaining input data for the geological stratum ([0076]-[0079] “input data for RFG model 402 ”);
obtaining field-based fluid distributions for a wellsite within the geological stratum (Fig. 10, [0076]-[0079], [0085], [0095] “For modeling processes within RFG model 402 by RFG simulator 404, in and outflow of energy and/or fluid (water, hydrocarbons, non-hydrocarbons such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.), masses, pressures and/or mechanical constraints (e.g., outer stresses from tectonics), may also be used as input data.”; “Resulting fluid distributions generated by RFG simulator 404 may also be used for calibration purposes, e.g., by a calibration module 422, which compares simulated fluid distributions with measurement data 424, e.g. fluid samples from downhole fluid analysis (DFA).”; “DFA data”);
preparing one of an assumed reservoir architecture, a well placement, a well completion technique, a well stimulation strategy and a well production plan for the wellsite within the geological stratum (Fig. 6 & 8, [0074]-[0079], [0093], [0095] “preparing input for an RFG simulation by RFG simulator 404. First, in blocks 452 and 454, a region of interest is selected and cut out of the integrated subsurface model and the cut out region of interest is refined to the desired scale for the RFG simulation, e.g., using refinement module 418 of FIG. 6. Next, in block 456, present day data is accessed and extrapolated over geological time (e.g., using extrapolation module 412 of FIG. 6) to scale the present day properties to the spatial resolution and timescale to be used for the RFG simulation.”, Examiner Note: building a reservoir architecture model for a region of interest at the spatial resolution corresponds to “preparing an assumed reservoir architecture”);
performing a (claim 7) computer-based dynamic simulation of a charge process for the geological stratum for the one of the assumed reservoir architecture, the well placement, the well completion technique, the well stimulation strategy and the well production plan for the wellsite to produce a result (Fig. 9, [0074]-[0082], [0084], [0094] “RFG simulator 404 may model any combination of the following processes: diffusion of fluid compounds, e.g. compositional grading; fluid phase separation (PVT); separate phase flow, e.g. Darcy flow; biodegradation and biological sulfate reduction; secondary chemical cracking of oil; asphaltene flocculation; tar mat formation; pressure, temperature and stress variations; gas hydrates (fluid solid phase separation); flow baffling up to compartmentalization; thermochemical sulfate reduction; rock compaction, fracturing and rock failure; fluid rock interactions, e.g. cementation, dolomitization, smectite to illite transformations; magmatic intrusions, e.g. heat impact; ground water flow; convection; CO.sub.2 sequestration; and/or impact of nuclear waste disposal on the geological environment, e.g. diffusion of radioactive compounds.”, “RFG simulation by RFG simulator 404 results in… hydrocarbon amounts accessible for production.”, Examiner Note: running a computer simulation on the RFG model over a geological timescale and at a reservoir-scale spatial resolution to produce fluid distribution results corresponds to “performing a computer-based dynamic simulation/dynamic simulation”.);
comparing the result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite (Fig. 10, [0085], [0095], “Resulting fluid distributions generated by RFG simulator 404 may also be used for calibration purposes, e.g., by a calibration module 422, which compares simulated fluid distributions with measurement data 424, e.g. fluid samples from downhole fluid analysis (DFA).”,“Block 484 then accesses fluid distribution data from the RFG model, and block 486 performs a comparison between this data, e.g., using various model validation techniques ”);
ending the method when the comparing of the result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite… ([0095] “block 486 performs a comparison between this data, e.g., using various model validation techniques that will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art. Based upon this comparison, block 488 determines if the model is acceptable, i.e., is sufficiently accurate given the actual measurement data. If so, the sequence of operations is complete.”); and
revising at least one of the reservoir architecture, a well placement, a well completion technique, a well stimulation strategy and a well production plan for the wellsite and the dynamic simulation of the charge process and returning to perform another dynamic simulation and comparing the result to the field-based fluid distributions for the wellsite until the ending of the method (Fig. 10 [0085], [0095] “In case of not matching measurement data with a sufficient degree of accuracy, uncertain model parameters may be adjusted to achieve a better match after re-running the simulation. A calibration workflow may allow for adjusting the RFG model iteratively, achieving high accuracy for matching available data and thus potentially enhancing the predictive capability in regions with sparse data. Further, calibration may also be used to calibrate or otherwise update basin model 406. A separate calibration loop for basin model 406, similar to that for RFG model 402, may also be supported in some embodiments.”, “block 486 performs a comparison between this data, e.g., using various model validation techniques that will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art. Based upon this comparison, block 488 determines if the model is acceptable, i.e., is sufficiently accurate given the actual measurement data. If so, the sequence of operations is complete. If not, control passes to block 490 to tune the RFG model, e.g., using various tuning techniques known to those of ordinary skill in the art such as adjusting uncertain parameters. The simulation is then rerun and control returns to block 484 to re-access the fluid distribution data corresponding to the rerun simulation. Thus, calibration may be performed in an iterative manner until the model has been sufficient tuned to match the actual measurement data.”).
Kauerauf et al. fails to teach exility ending the method when the comparing of the result… is below a user-defined threshold value.
However, Gurpinar et al. teaches ending the method using a user-defined threshold value (Fig. 11A-B, Col. 9 lines 51-67m Col. 10 lines 1-3). In particular, Gurpinar et al. teaches an iterative reservoir model calibration process in which model responses are compared to actual measured performance, and the model performance is compared to historical data to determine if the model performance reproduces the historical data. If the model performance did not reproduce the historical data, adjustments are made to the model properties, if the model performance did reproduce the historical data, a historical calibrated model is created the process terminates which constitutes applying “a user-defined threshold value” for ending the method.
Kauerauf et al. and Gurpinar et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for reservoir operation development.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Gurpinar et al. into Kauerauf et al.’s invention to properly allocate resources to assure that the reservoir meets its potential and to make proper reservoir management decisions (Gurpinar et al.: Col. 1 lines 25-40, col. 8 lines 32-37).
As per Claim 2 and 11, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the input data includes at least one seismic survey ([0075] “seismic surveys with interpretation”).
As per Claim 3 and 12, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the input data includes at least one of geology logs and petrophysical logs ([0075], [0077] “well data (e.g. well logs)”, “subsurface maps of geological formations…faults… rock properties”).
As per Claim 4 and 13, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the input data includes core sample data ([0075], [0085], [0095] “fluid samples from downhole fluid analysis (DFA)”).
As per Claim 5 and 14, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the input data includes fluid sample data ([0055], [0060], [0077], “core sample data measured from a core sample of the formation”, “rock properties… such as rock type (e.g., sandstone, shale, salt, limestone, etc.), porosity, shale content, etc. Fault properties, e.g., shale gouge content, may also be used””).
As per Claim 6 and 15, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the input data includes pressure test data ([0056], [0078] “pressures… may also be used as input data”).
As per Claim 7 and 16, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the charge process occurs over a period of fluid exposure to geological processes ([0067], [0081]-[0082 “model varying fluid compositions within a reservoir or an accumulation but on geological timescales…. a geological timescale of greater than about 100 years, e.g., between about 100 and about 100 million years, may be used.”).
As per Claim 8, Kauerauf et al. teaches further comprising: saving a final reservoir architecture in a non-volatile memory (Fig. 1, [0009]-[0010], [0094], [0096] “results may then be output to the integrated subsurface model in block 478”, “block 508 the results of the simulation are output, e.g., to the integrated subsurface model, to a separate simulation output, or to a visualization module for display and analysis.”).
As per Claim 9, Kauerauf et al. teaches further comprising: printing characteristics of a final reservoir architecture ([0096] “the results of the simulation may also be used in the performance of an oilfield operation, e.g., to drill a well, determine a field development plan, to configure a surface network, to control a production and/or injection well, etc.”).
As per Claim 18, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the field-based values are used in at least one of field development planning, well placement and construction, wellbore completion, wellbore stimulation and wellbore production activities ([0025], [0063]-[0067], [0070], [0074], [0096] “early development workflows in the oil & gas industry”, “block 508 the results of the simulation are output, e.g., to the integrated subsurface model, to a separate simulation output, or to a visualization module for display and analysis.”).
As per Claim 19, Kauerauf et al. teaches wherein the obtaining input data includes obtaining petrophysics data ([0077]-[0078] [0088], [0097] “input data for RFG model 402 may include at least subsurface maps of geological formations… faults … rock properties describing the volumes between mapped surfaces and faults may be used, such as rock type (e.g., sandstone, shale, salt, limestone, etc.), porosity, shale content, etc. Fault properties, e.g., shale gouge content, may also be used”, “subsurface formation data, which may include measurement data, rock properties, subsurface maps, fault maps,”).
7. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauerauf et al. (US 20190293835 A1), in view of Gurpinar et al. (US 7953585 B2), further in view of Pomerantz et al. (US 20120232859 A1).
Kauerauf et al. as modified by Gurpinar et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-19 above.
As per Claim 20, Kauerauf et al. as modified by Gurpinar et al. teaches wherein the obtaining input data includes obtaining fluid composition data, optical density data, …, mass density data, viscosity biomarker data, and … ([0047], [0049], [0055], [0064], [0077]-[0082], [0085] “a graph of the density, porosity, permeability, or some other physical property of the core sample over the length of the core. Tests for density and viscosity may be performed on the fluids in the core at varying pressures and temperatures.”, “fluid compositions within a reservoir”, “diffusion of fluid compounds, e.g. compositional grading”, “in and outflow of energy and/or fluid (water, hydrocarbons, non-hydrocarbons such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.), masses, pressures and/or mechanical constraints (e.g., outer stresses from tectonics), may also be used as input data.”, “measurement data 424, e.g. fluid samples from downhole fluid analysis (DFA)”).
Kauerauf et al. as modified by Gurpinar et al. fails to teach explicitly gas to oil ratio data and isotope pressure data.
Pomerantz et al. teaches gas to oil ratio data and isotope pressure data ([0037]-[0049], [0115]).
Kauerauf et al., Gurpinar et al., and Pomerantz et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for reservoir operation development.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Pomerantz et al. into Kauerauf et al. and Gurpinar et al.’s invention to properly allocate resources to assure that the reservoir meets its potential and to make proper reservoir management decisions (Gurpinar et al.: Col. 1 lines 25-40, col. 8 lines 32-37) and to provide an enhanced reservoir development plan modeling by calibrating to field-based fluid measurements which may allow for more accurate assessment and representation of flow affects (Pomerantz et al.: [0065], [0077], [0147]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kauerauf et al. (US 10083258 B2)
Saini et al. (US 10605055 B2)
Wang et al. (“Differing Equilibration Times of GOR, Asphaltenes and Biomarkers as Determined by Charge History and Reservoir Fluid Geodynamics”)
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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 Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188