DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second well new” in line 7 should be replaced with “the second new well”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14-15 and 18 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the two or more existing wells" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the two or more existing wells" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recited the limitation “the trigger comprises an oil production rate declining, a gas production rate increasing, and a pressure declining” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if all these events have to occur for a trigger to occur or if only one 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.
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 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test 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 1-20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (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 Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including: “calculating a plurality of connected volumes in a reservoir model; determining that a total hydrocarbon production of one or more existing wells inside the reservoir model has decreased below a predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold; determining that one or more drilling rigs have a capacity to support drilling a first new well in response to determining that the total hydrocarbon production has decreased below the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, wherein the first new well comprises a production well; determining an opportunity index in response to determining that one or more drilling rigs have the capacity; identifying a target in the opportunity index.”
Claim 11 recites abstract limitations, including: “calculating a plurality of connected volumes, wherein the connected volumes are calculated based upon a transmissibility in a grid, wherein the grid comprises a plurality of grid cells in a reservoir model, wherein the connected volumes comprise the grid cells in the reservoir model that are hydraulically connected, wherein each grid cell comprises a plurality of properties, and wherein the properties comprise porosity, permeability, or saturation; and performing a first time step in a simulation, wherein the first time step is performed after calculating the plurality of connected volumes, wherein performing the first time step comprises: determining that a total hydrocarbon production of one or more existing wells inside the reservoir model has decreased below a predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, wherein the total hydrocarbon production comprises a rate at which hydrocarbons are produced; determining that one or more drilling rigs have a capacity to support drilling a first new well in response to determining that the total hydrocarbon production has decreased below the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, wherein the first new well comprises a production well; determining an opportunity index in response to determining that one or more drilling rigs have the capacity; identifying a target in the opportunity index.
Claim 16 recites abstract limitations, including: “calculating a plurality of connected volumes, wherein the connected volumes are calculated based upon a transmissibility in a grid, wherein the grid comprises a plurality of grid cells in a reservoir model, wherein the connected volumes comprise the grid cells in the reservoir model that are hydraulically connected, wherein each grid cell comprises a plurality of properties, and wherein the properties comprise porosity, permeability, and saturation; performing a first time step in a simulation, wherein the first time step is performed after calculating the plurality of connected volumes, wherein performing the first time step comprises: determining that a total hydrocarbon production of two or more existing wells inside the reservoir model has decreased below a predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, wherein the total hydrocarbon production comprises a rate at which hydrocarbons are produced; determining that one or more drilling rigs have a capacity to support drilling a first new well in response to determining that the total hydrocarbon production has decreased below the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, wherein the first new well comprises a production well; determining an opportunity index in response to determining that one or more drilling rigs have the capacity, wherein the opportunity index is based upon the properties of the grid cells and one or more constant values that are unrelated to the properties of the grid cells; identifying a target in the opportunity index, wherein the target comprises one or more values in the opportunity index that are greater than a predetermined opportunity index threshold; assigning controls to the first new well, wherein the controls comprise production rate limits and pressure limits; and determining that the total hydrocarbon production of a combination of the two or more existing wells and the first new well in the reservoir model is greater than the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold after assigning the controls; and performing a second time step in the simulation in response to determining that the total hydrocarbon production of the combination of the two or more existing wells and the first new well in the reservoir model is greater than the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of placing the first new well in the reservoir model in response to identifying the target.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of: one or more processors; a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations; and placing the first new well in the reservoir model in response to identifying the target.
Claim 16 recites the additional element of: a computer program comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer processor of a computing device, causes the computing device to perform operations and placing the first new well in the reservoir model in response to identifying the target, wherein the first new well is placed as part of a predetermined pattern in the target or by itself in the target, and wherein the first new well is placed so as to not collide or interfere with the two or more existing wells.
“[P]lacing the first new well in the reservoir model in response to identifying the target” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[P]lacing the first new well in the reservoir model in response to identifying the target, wherein the first new well is placed as part of a predetermined pattern in the target or by itself in the target, and wherein the first new well is placed so as to not collide or interfere with the two or more existing wells” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The processor, non-transitory computer-readable media, computer program, computer processor, and computing device are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, 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).
Placing the first new well in the reservoir model is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of placing data (i.e., importing/transmitting/receiving data) is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. 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 a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The additional limitations of wherein the first new well is placed as part of a predetermined pattern in the target or by itself in the target, and wherein the first new well is placed so as to not collide or interfere with the two or more existing wells merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
As discussed above, the processor, the non-transitory computer-readable media, the computer program, the computer processor, and the computing device 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2-6, 12-13, and 17-20 further recite:
the connected volumes are calculated based upon a transmissibility in a grid;
the grid comprises a plurality of grid cells in the reservoir model;
the connected volumes comprise the grid cells in the reservoir model that are hydraulically connected;
each grid cell comprises a plurality of properties, and wherein the properties comprise porosity, permeability, or saturation
the opportunity index is based upon the properties of the grid cells;
the opportunity index is based upon the properties of the grid cells and one or more constant values that are unrelated to the properties of the grid cells; and
the target comprises one or more values in the opportunity index that are greater than a predetermined opportunity index threshold;
determining that the one or more drilling rigs have the capacity to support drilling a second new well in response to determining that the total hydrocarbon production is greater than the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, and wherein the second new well comprises an injection well;
detecting a trigger, wherein the trigger comprises an oil production rate declining, a gas production rate increasing, and a pressure declining in one of the two or more existing wells or the first new well; and determining that the one or more drilling rigs have the capacity to support drilling a second new well in response to the trigger, wherein the second new well comprises an injection well;
the operations further comprise determining to drill the first new well before drilling a new injection well, which causes the total hydrocarbon production of the combination of the two or more existing wells and the first new well in the reservoir model to remain above the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold; and
the operations further comprise determining to drill a new injection well before the first new well, which causes the total hydrocarbon production of the combination of the two or more existing wells in the reservoir model to remain above the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Claim 7 further recites “displaying the opportunity index, the target, or the first new well in the reservoir model” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “displaying” is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, displayed, and/or transmitting/receiving the data. 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 a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 8 further recites “performing a wellsite action” which amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically, performing a wellsite action is a generic limitation with no integration/use of the abstract idea.
Claim 9 further recites “performing the wellsite action comprises generating and transmitting a signal to control drilling of the first new well at a wellsite” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) as Downton (US 2008/0142268 see ¶ [0025]) discloses generating and transmitting a signal to control drilling of a wellbore is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
Claim 10 further recites “performing the wellsite action comprises drilling the first new well at a wellsite” which merely amount to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., drilling a wellbore) to an identified problem (i.e., wellbore spacing is to great) 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)).
Claim 14 further recites “determining that the total hydrocarbon production of a combination of the two or more existing wells and the first new well in the reservoir model is less than the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold; determining that the one or more drilling rigs have the capacity to support drilling a second new well in response to determining that the total hydrocarbon production is less than the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, wherein the second well new comprises a production well” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 14 further recites placing the second new well in the reservoir model. Placing the second new well in the reservoir model is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) as the limitation of placing data (i.e., importing/transmitting/receiving data) is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. 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 a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 15 further recites “determining that the total hydrocarbon production of a combination of the two or more existing wells and the first new well in the reservoir model is greater than the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold; determining that the one or more drilling rigs have the capacity to support drilling a second new well in response to determining that the total hydrocarbon production is greater than the predetermined hydrocarbon production threshold, wherein the second new well comprises an injection well” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 15 further recites placing the second new well in the reservoir model. Placing the second new well in the reservoir model is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) as the limitation of placing data (i.e., importing/transmitting/receiving data) is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. 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 a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art but are rejected under 101 as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or make obvious the details of the combination of the elements recited in the claims in combination with all other claim limitations. Specifically, there is no disclosure of determining an opportunity index using rig capacity that occurs when hydrocarbon production decreases in a connected volume reservoir model. While the individual elements are known in the art, it would not be obvious to combine all the elements in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights