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 Objections
Claims 6, 10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, “The method of claim 1, saturating the rock sample” should be changed to “The method of claim 1, further comprising saturating the rock sample” in order to clarify that the step is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, “The method of claim 1, using the” should be changed to “The method of claim 1 further comprising using the” in order to clarify that the step is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, “The system of claim 1” should be changed to “The system of claim 11” in order to correct the dependency. The Examiner has interpreted the claim as depending on claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “an NMR device” should be changed to “the NMR device” in order to correct the antecedence since “an NMR device” was introduced in claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation "the predicted one or more petrophysical properties" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed to “predict one or more petrophysical properties”. As currently written, the claim recites “determine one or more petrophysical properties”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the determined one or more petrophysical properties”. Claims 12-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation "the predicted one or more petrophysical properties" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed to “predict one or more petrophysical properties”. As currently written, the claim recites “determine one or more petrophysical properties”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the determined one or more petrophysical properties”. Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable.
Claims 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Buono (U.S. 2018/0259467), Sungkorn (U.S. 2020/0225177), and Alabbad (U.S. 2023/0229827).
Regarding claim 1:
Buono discloses a method comprising:
imaging, using a computed tomography imaging device to generate a CT image of a rock sample from a reservoir (fig. 3, 310);
segmenting the CT image into CT slices ([0060], segmentation);
scanning the rock sample using an nuclear magnetic resonance device to provide NMR data for the rock sample (Fig. 3, 308), the NMR data characterizing relaxation times across different regions of the rock sample reflecting variations in pore sizes within the rock sample (Fig. 3, 308);
segmenting the NMR data into intervals corresponding to a scanning interval of a portion of the rock sample by the NMR device to provide NMR segments ([0060] segmentation);
predicting one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice ([0086], data is determined).
Alabbad teaches generating a petrophysical model for the reservoir based on the predicted one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice ([0030], modeling of a rock).
Sungkorn teaches processing the CT slices using a texture classifier to identify textures of the rock sample to provide texture data for each CT slice ([0045], classification based on properties which includes texture).
However, Buono, Alabbad, and Sungkorn fail to disclose analyzing the NMR segments and the texture data to determine a contribution of each texture in each CT slice to one or more relaxation times in a corresponding NMR segment of the NMR segments for each CT slice; predicting one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice based on a determined contribution of each texture and the corresponding NMR segment for each CT slice.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 2-10 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood:
Buono discloses a system comprising:
one or more computing platforms ([0038], processor) configured to:
segment a computed tomography image of a rock sample from a reservoir into CT slices ([0060], segmentation);
receive nuclear magnetic resonance data generated from an NMR scan of the rock sample (Fig. 3, 308), the NMR data characterizing relaxation times across different regions of the rock sample reflecting variations in pore sizes within the rock sample (Fig. 3, 308);
segment the NMR data into intervals corresponding to a scanning interval of a portion of the rock sample scanned by an NMR device to provide NMR segments ([0060] segmentation);
determine one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice ([0086], data is determined).
Sungkorn teaches process the CT slices using a texture classifier to identify textures of the rock sample to provide texture data for each CT slice ([0045], classification based on properties which includes texture).
Alabbad teaches generate a petrophysical model for the reservoir based on the determined one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice ([0030], modeling of a rock).
However, Buono, Alabbad, and Sungkorn fail to disclose analyze the NMR segments and the texture data to determine a contribution of each texture in each CT slice to one or more relaxation times in a corresponding NMR segment of the NMR segments for each CT slice; determine one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice based on a determined contribution of each texture and the corresponding NMR segment for each CT slice
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejections above. Claims 12-18 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood:
Buono discloses a system comprising:
memory ([0072], memory) to store machine-readable instructions;
one or more processors ([0038], processor) to access the memory and execute the machine-readable instructions, the machine-readable instructions comprising:
a computed tomography image segmentor to segment a CT image of a rock sample from a reservoir into CT slices ([0060], segmentation);
an nuclear magnetic resonance image segmentor to segment NMR data into intervals corresponding to a scanning interval of a portion of the rock sample scanned by an NMR device to provide NMR segments ([0060], segmentation);
a calculator to determine one or more petrophysical properties ([0086], data is determined).
Sungkorn teaches a texture classifier to identify textures of the rock sample to provide texture data for each CT slice ([0045], classification based on properties which includes texture).
Alabbad teaches a model generator to generate a petrophysical model for the reservoir based on the determined one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice ([0030], modeling of a rock).
However, Buono, Alabbad, and Sungkorn fail to disclose a factor analyzer to analyze the NMR segments and the texture data to determine a contribution of each texture in each CT slice to one or more relaxation times in a corresponding NMR segment of the NMR segments for each CT slice; a calculator to determine one or more petrophysical properties for each texture of each CT slice based on a determined contribution of each texture and the corresponding NMR segment for each CT slice.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejections above. Claim 20 is allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights