CTNF 19/140,369 CTNF 96728 Detailed Action 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2026 has being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 states “ …wherein he… ” Examiner assumes it was intended to read as “…wherein the …” . Appropriate correction is required. Specification 07-44 AIA The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 contains language referencing a second injector however, no second injector is disclosed in the specification . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1, 11, 20 The metes and bounds of claims 1, 11, 20 are ambiguous as the claim language states “a resource site” in the preamble however in limitation regarding the geo-radius the claims cite “a resource site” and it is not clear if this is a second resource site or the same resource site from the preamble. Therefore, as it is not clear that the claim language is indicating one resource site or multiple resource sites, the claim language is ambiguous in the metes and bounds of claims 1, 11, 20. Claims 1, 11, 20 are rejected on this basis. Claims 2-10, 12-19 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites the limitation " the second injector " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as this is the only mention of a second injector in the claims and therefore, unclear if the claim language is introducing a second injector with out antecedent basis or an unintended inclusion in the claim language. Therefore as the claim language is unclear as to intended language of the limitation regarding the second injection the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear. Claim 1 is rejected on these basis’ Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim. Examiners note: As no further mention of a second injector is present in the claims or specification Examiner assumes for examination purposes that it is the first producer using similar claim language present in claims 11 & 20. Claim 1: … determine a correlated pair of injectors and producers associated with the first injector and the second injector Claim 11: … determine a correlated pair of injectors and producers associated with the first injector and the first producer Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea. Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails 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. Claims 1, 11, 20 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture) respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception The claim(s) recite(s) abstract limitations including: Claim 1: determining a geo radius; correlating the fluid production rate data with the fluid in injection rate data; …determine a correlated pair…; generating a forecasting model Claims 11: determine a geo radius; correlate the fluid production rate data with the fluid injection rate data…; …determine a correlated pair…; generate a forecasting model Claim 20: determining a geo radius; correlating the fluid production rate data with the fluid injection rate data…; …determine correlated pairs…; generating a forecasting model These limitations, as drafted, are abstract mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 1, 11, 20 recites the additional elements of: Claim 1: A resource site, a first injector, a first producer, a pump mechanism which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use; …Using the correlated pair of injectors and producers… which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Receiving fluid production rate data, receiving fluid injection rate data, the forecasting model being parametrized using one or more of a first variable indicating a first range of fluid production rate values, a second variable indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values, executing…one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer, initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device, initiating transmission of a pump rate control signal to configure… which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity; Claim 11: A resource site, a first injector, a first producer, a pump mechanism which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use; A computer processor, memory storing instructions that are executable by the computer processor, …Using the correlated pair of injectors and producers… which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Receiving fluid production rate data, receiving fluid injection rate data, the forecasting model being parametrized using one or more of a first variable indicating a first range of fluid production rate values, a second variable indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values, executing…one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer, initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device, and initiating transmission of a pump rate control signal to configure… which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity; Claim 20: A resource site, a first injector, a first producer, a pump mechanism which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use; …Using the correlated pair of injectors and producers which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Fluid production rate data obtained from one or more sensors…, fluid injection rate data obtained from one or more sensors…, the forecasting model being parametrized using one or more of a first variable indicating a first range of fluid production rate values, a second variable indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values, executing…one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer, initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device and initiating transmission of a pump rate control signal to configure… which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity; If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Claim 1: As discussed above, A resource site, a first injector, a first producer, a pump mechanism merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)). With respect to …Using the correlated pair of injectors and producers merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. using data) to an identified problem (i.e. model generation) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) Regarding the recited process in the “Receiving fluid production rate data, receiving fluid injection rate data, the forecasting model being parametrized using one or more of a first variable indicating a first range of fluid production rate values, a second variable indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values, executing…one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer, initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device, initiating transmission of a pump rate control signal to configure…” steps are considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. And buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 11: As discussed above, A resource site, a first injector, a first producer, a pump mechanism merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)). With respect to A computer processor, memory storing instructions that are executable by the computer processor, these elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification fails to disclose that these elements are anything other than generic computing elements and are even shown as black boxes on the figures. (see MPEP2106.05(f)). With respect to …Using the correlated pair of injectors and producers merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. using data) to an identified problem (i.e. model generation) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) Regarding the recited process in the “Receiving fluid production rate data, receiving fluid injection rate data, the forecasting model being parametrized using one or more of a first variable indicating a first range of fluid production rate values, a second variable indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values, executing…one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer, initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device, and initiating transmission of a pump rate control signal to configure…” steps are considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. And buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 20: As discussed above, A resource site, a first injector, a first producer, a pump mechanism merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)). With respect to …Using the correlated pair of injectors and producers merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. using data) to an identified problem (i.e. model generation) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) Additionally, one or more plurality of the sensors is recited at a high level of generality. Given the generality of the positioning of the sensors, the type of sensor, and the type of data collected by the sensors, these limitations do not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) Regarding the recited process in the “Fluid production rate data obtained from…, fluid injection rate data obtained from…, the forecasting model being parametrized using one or more of a first variable indicating a first range of fluid production rate values, a second variable indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values, executing…one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer, initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device and initiating transmission of a pump rate control signal to configure…” steps are considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. And buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The various metrics of claims 2-10, 12-19 merely narrow the recitation of the specific variables and data limitations are insufficient as “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas," (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Similar to claim 1, 13 and 18 this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Champenoy (US Pub No 20150051838) . Champenoy discloses in claim 1. A method for water flooding optimization (Champenoy [0006] methods and systems for water flood optimization) at a resource site for increased production of hydrocarbons (Champenoy [0004] water flood is a known technique for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)), the method comprising: determining a geo-radius (Champenoy Fig 2a, 2b, 2c [0032] circular regions associated with injector wells) circumscribing a first injector (Champenoy fig 2a; injector well 10a [0032] injector well 10a) and a first producer (Champenoy [0032] producer to injector connectivity) at a resource site (Champenoy [0028] individual injector regions at a reservoir); receiving fluid production rate data (Champenoy [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) from the first producer and fluid injection rate data (Champenoy [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) from the first injector; correlating the fluid production rate data with the fluid injection rate data to determine a correlated pair of injectors and producers associated with the first injector and the second injector (Champenoy [0034] Water injection influence map takes the water injection data of a region from the injector wells and correlates it to the water influence on producer wells); generating a forecasting model using the correlated pair of injectors and producers (Champenoy Fig 10 [0043] shows a plot of water injection volume, produced oil volume and produced water volume and determining the impact of two new wells utilizing curve approve estimation and Fig 11 [0044] Voidage replacement ratio (VRR) predictions based on historical data), the forecasting model being parameterized using one or more of: a first variable (Champenoy Fig 1; S10 [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) indicating a first range of fluid production rate values (Champenoy [0034] producer wells have multiple values of water influence), and a second variable (Champenoy Fig 1; S10 [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values (Champenoy [0034] injection volume and individual injection influence data); executing, based on the forecasting model, one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer (Champenoy Fig 1; S28 [0038] predicting and developing a plan to maintain VRR target); and executing one or more of: initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device (Chapenoy Fig 10 [0043] showing a plot with predicted production values), or Champenoy discloses in claim 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein: the geo-radius defines a geometrical pattern bounding or selecting the first producer and the first injector at the resource site (Champenoy Fig 2a, 2b, 2c [0032] circular regions associated with injector wells), the first injector being comprised in one or more injectors including at least one well into which fluid including water is pumped (Champenoy [0034] first injector pumps water into the reservoir), and the first producer being comprised in one or more producers including at least one well from which fluid including hydrocarbons is extracted (Champenoy [0034] producer wells produce oil). Champenoy discloses in claim 3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the injection rate data includes data indicating a rate at which water is injected or pumped into one or more wells at the resource site (Champenoy [0037] VRR calculation requires the water injection rate in the reservoir further [0058] injection volume over time). Champenoy discloses in claim 4. The method of Claim 1, wherein the production rate data includes data indicating a rate at which fluid including hydrocarbons is extracted from one or more wells at the resource site (Champenoy [0037] VRR calculation requires the volume of water, gas, and oil produced by the reservoir further [0058] oil recovery rate). Champenoy discloses in claim 5. The method of Claim 1, wherein the sensitivity tests include a computational analysis that quantifies an impact of a plurality of injection rates based on the second variable relative to a plurality of production rates based on the first variable (Champenoy [0034] Water injection influence map takes the water injection data of a region from the injector wells and correlates it to the water influence on producer wells). Champenoy discloses in claim 6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the production forecast report includes data indicating an optimal injection rate (Champenoy [0029] optimizing injection rates) for which maximum fluid is produced (Champenoy [0007] maximum recovery factor) for one or more of: the first producer at the resource site (Champenoy [0032] mapping the influence of injector wells to producer wells in a reservoir), or one or more producers bounded by the geo-radius (Champenoy [0032] mapping the influence of injector wells to producer wells in a geo-radius). Champenoy discloses in claim 7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the forecasting model is further parameterized with time duration data for which production estimates are generated based on the forecasting model (Champenoy [0029] [0032] [0034] disclose the use of time periods for the determination of the production estimates). Champenoy discloses in claim 8. The method of Claim 1, wherein one or more of the fluid production rate data or the fluid injection rate data is preprocessed to remove anomalous data values due to instrumentation errors (Champenoy [0036] curve fit extrapolation performed on the historical data), wherein the removed anomalous data values are substituted with interpolated values derived from the fluid production rate data or the fluid injection rate data (Champenoy [0036] curve fit extrapolation performed on the historical data to optimize flooding operations such as injection or production data). Champenoy discloses in claim 9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the visualization indicating the production forecast report includes a plurality of production forecast data for a plurality of wells bounded by the geo-radius (Champenoy Fig 4; shows a variety of injector wells (denoted by Stars) and bounded regions containing multiple production wells (denoted by dots) and the influence of water injection on the well and reservoir system). Champenoy discloses in claim 10. The method of Claim 1, wherein the visualization aggregates production forecast data for a plurality of wells bounded by the geo-radius (Champenoy fig 4; showing the aggregate production data [0034] disclosing the water injection influence map being generated by the historical and simulation data to optimize recovery operations). Champenoy discloses in claim 11. A system for water flooding optimization (Champenoy [0006] methods and systems for water flood optimization) at a resource site for increased production of hydrocarbons (Champenoy [0004] water flood is a known technique for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)), the system comprising: a computer processor (Champenoy Fig 17; 112), and memory (Champenoy Fig 17; 114) storing instructions (Champenoy [0052] instructions stored and executed by the computer) that are executable by the computer processor (Champenoy [0052] instructions stored and executed by the computer) to: determine a geo-radius (Champenoy Fig 2a, 2b, 2c [0032] circular regions associated with injector wells) circumscribing a first injector (Champenoy fig 2a; injector well 10a [0032] injector well 10a) and a first producer (Champenoy [0032] producer to injector connectivity) at a resource site (Champenoy [0028] individual injector regions at a reservoir); receive fluid production rate data (Champenoy [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) from the first producer and fluid injection rate data (Champenoy [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) from the first injector; correlate the fluid production rate data with the fluid injection rate data to determine a correlated pair of injectors and producers associated with the first injector and the first producer (Champenoy [0034] Water injection influence map takes the water injection data of a region from the injector wells and correlates it to the water influence on producer wells); generate a forecasting model using the correlated pairs of injectors and producers (Champenoy Fig 10 [0043] shows a plot of water injection volume, produced oil volume and produced water volume and determining the impact of two new wells utilizing curve approve estimation and Fig 11 [0044] Voidage replacement ratio (VRR) predictions based on historical data), the forecasting model being parameterized using one or more of: a first variable (Champenoy Fig 1; S10 [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) indicating a first range of fluid production rate values (Champenoy [0034] producer wells have multiple values of water influence), and a second variable (Champenoy Fig 1; S10 [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values (Champenoy [0034] injection volume and individual injection influence data); execute using the forecasting model, one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer (Champenoy Fig 1; S28 [0038] predicting and developing a plan to maintain VRR target); and execute one or more of: initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device (Chapenoy Fig 10 [0043] showing a plot with predicted production values), or Champenoy discloses in claim 12. The system of Claim 11, wherein: the geo-radius defines a geometrical pattern bounding or selecting the first producer and the first injector at the resource site (Champenoy Fig 2a, 2b, 2c [0032] circular regions associated with injector wells), the first injector being comprised in one or more injectors including at least one well into which fluid including water is pumped (Champenoy [0034] first injector pumps water into the reservoir), and the first producer being comprised in one or more producers including at least one well from which fluid including hydrocarbons is extracted (Champenoy [0034] producer wells produce oil). Champenoy discloses in claim 13. The system of Claim 11, wherein the injection rate data includes data indicating a rate at which water is injected or pumped into one or more wells at the resource site (Champenoy [0037] VRR calculation requires the water injection rate in the reservoir further [0058] injection volume over time). Champenoy discloses in claim 14. The system of Claim 11, wherein the production rate data includes data indicating a rate at which fluid including hydrocarbons is extracted from one or more wells at the resource site (Champenoy [0037] VRR calculation requires the volume of water, gas, and oil produced by the reservoir further [0058] oil recovery rate). Champenoy discloses in claim 15. The system of Claim 11, wherein the sensitivity tests include a computational analysis that quantifies an impact of a plurality of injection rates based on the second variable relative to a plurality of production rates based on the first variable(Champenoy [0034] Water injection influence map takes the water injection data of a region from the injector wells and correlates it to the water influence on producer wells). Champenoy discloses in claim 16. The system of Claim 11, wherein the production forecast report includes data indicating an optimal injection rate (Champenoy [0029] optimizing injection rates) for which maximum fluid is produced (Champenoy [0007] maximum recovery factor) for one or more of: the first producer at the resource site (Champenoy [0032] mapping the influence of injector wells to producer wells in a reservoir), or one or more producers bounded by the geo-radius (Champenoy [0032] mapping the influence of injector wells to producer wells in a geo-radius). Champenoy discloses in claim 17. The system of Claim 11, wherein he forecasting model is further parameterized with time duration data for which production estimates are generated based on the forecasting model (Champenoy [0029] [0032] [0034] disclose the use of time periods for the determination of the production estimates). Champenoy discloses in claim 18. The system of Claim 11, wherein one or more of the fluid production rate data or the fluid injection rate data is preprocessed to remove anomalous data values due to instrumentation errors, (Champenoy [0036] curve fit extrapolation performed on the historical data), wherein the removed anomalous data values are substituted with interpolated values derived from the fluid production rate data or the fluid injection rate data (Champenoy [0036] curve fit extrapolation performed on the historical data to optimize flooding operations such as injection or production data). Champenoy discloses in claim 19. The system of Claim 11, wherein the visualization indicating the production forecast report includes a plurality of production forecast data for a plurality of wells bounded by the geo-radius (Champenoy Fig 4; shows a variety of injector wells (denoted by Stars) and bounded regions containing multiple production wells (denoted by dots) and the influence of water injection on the well and reservoir system). Champenoy discloses in claim 20. A method for water flooding optimization (Champenoy [0006] methods and systems for water flood optimization) at a resource site for increased production of hydrocarbons (Champenoy [0004] water flood is a known technique for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)), the method comprising: determining a geo-radius (Champenoy Fig 2a, 2b, 2c [0032] circular regions associated with injector wells) circumscribing one or more injectors (Champenoy fig 2a; injector well 10a [0032] injector well 10a) and one or more producers (Champenoy [0032] producer to injector connectivity) at a resource site (Champenoy [0028] individual injector regions at a reservoir); receiving: fluid production rate data (Champenoy [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) obtained from one or more sensors (Champenoy [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) disposed about the one or more producers at the resource site (Champenoy [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data collected around the reservoir and well sites), and fluid injection rate data (Champenoy [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) obtained from one or more sensors (Champenoy [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data collected around the reservoir and well sites) disposed about the one or more injectors at the resource site (Champenoy [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data collected around the reservoir and well sites); correlating the fluid production rate data with the fluid injection rate data to determine correlated pairs of injectors and producers associated with the one or more injectors and the one or more producers (Champenoy [0034] Water injection influence map takes the water injection data of a region from the injector wells and correlates it to the water influence on producer wells), the correlated pairs of injectors and producers indicating a relationship between a first injector comprised in the one or more injectors and a first producer comprised in the one or more producers (Champenoy [0034] Water injection influence map takes the water injection data of a region from the injector wells and correlates it to the water influence on producer wells); generating a forecasting model using the correlated pairs of injectors and producers (Champenoy Fig 10 [0043] shows a plot of water injection volume, produced oil volume and produced water volume and determining the impact of two new wells utilizing curve approve estimation and Fig 11 [0044] Voidage replacement ratio (VRR) predictions based on historical data), the forecasting model being parameterized using one or more of: a first variable (Champenoy Fig 1; S10 [0031] input of production, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) indicating a first range of fluid production rate values (Champenoy [0034] producer wells have multiple values of water influence), and a second variable (Champenoy Fig 1; S10 [0031] input of injection, time period and flowing bottom hole pressure data) indicating a second range of fluid injection rate values (Champenoy [0034] injection volume and individual injection influence data); executing using the forecasting model, one or more sensitivity tests comprising at least one simulation based on the first variable or the second variable to generate a production forecast report for the first producer (Champenoy Fig 1; S28 [0038] predicting and developing a plan to maintain VRR target); and executing one or more of: initiating generation of a visualization indicating the production forecast report for viewing on a display device (Chapenoy Fig 10 [0043] showing a plot with predicted production values) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun (US Pub No 20220147674): Sun teaches the development of a fluid dynamics model for flood optimization for oil recovery utilizing predictive methodologies and historical data. Optimization relies on modification of injection rates to production rates from injector and producer wells. See Figs 1-3 and Fig 9-10 and para [0041], [0051]-[0057] for details. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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. /NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3672 /Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 2 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 3 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 4 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 5 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 6 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 7 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 8 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 9 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 10 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 11 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 12 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 13 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 14 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 15 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 16 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 17 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 18 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 19 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 20 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 21 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 19/140,369 Page 22 Art Unit: 3672
Prosecution Insights