US 9910938

US Patent 9,910,938 B2 — Summary

Bibliographic data (confirmed via Google Patents and Justia)

• Title: Shale gas production forecasting
• Patent number: US 9,910,938 B2 (published application: US 2013/0346040 A1)
• Assignee: Schlumberger Technology Corporation (Sugar Land, TX, US)
• Inventors: Gabriela Morales German (Mexico City, MX); Rafael Navarro Rosales (Lee, FR); Francois Xavier Dubost (Idron, FR)
• Filing date: June 14, 2013 (Application No. 13/918,249)
• Priority date: June 20, 2012 (Provisional Application 61/662,292)
• Issue date: March 6, 2018
• Status: Active (Google Patents lists adjusted expiration around October 6, 2036)
• Examiners: Primary Examiner Omar F. Fernandez Rivas; Assistant Examiner Bijan Mapar
• Classifications: International: G06F 17/50, E21B 43/00, G01V 99/00, G01V 1/28; US current class 166/250.15 (Automatic control for production)

Abstract

"A method can include providing data for at least one shale gas formation; performing a statistical analysis on the data for each of the at least one shale gas formation; providing a simulation model; history matching the simulation model for each of the at least one shale gas formation based at least in part on the performed statistical analysis to generate a history matched model for each of the at least one shale gas formation; and forecasting production for another shale gas formation by plugging in data for the other shale gas formation into each generated history matched model. Various other apparatuses, systems, methods, etc., are also disclosed."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Important caveat: The full claims text was not included in the excerpt you provided (the text ends mid-specification, before the claims). The summary below is derived from the Abstract and Summary sections of the specification, which track the three independent claim types (method / computer-readable medium / system). I cannot authoritatively confirm exact claim numbering or verbatim claim language without the issued claims text.

1. Independent method claim (likely claim 1): A method for forecasting shale gas production that (a) provides production data for at least one known/developed shale gas formation; (b) performs a statistical analysis on that data for each formation (e.g., generating P10/P50/Pave/P90 production curves); (c) provides a reservoir simulation model; (d) history-matches the simulation model for each formation using the statistical analysis, producing a separate history-matched model per formation; and (e) forecasts production for a different ("other") shale gas formation by plugging that other formation's data into each of the history-matched models (i.e., using the calibrated models as surrogate/proxy models for the new, data-limited formation).

2. Independent computer-readable storage medium claim: Recites instructions that cause a computing system to perform essentially the same steps as the method claim — accessing data for at least one shale gas formation, performing statistical analysis, providing a simulation model, history matching per formation, and forecasting for another formation by plugging its data into each history-matched model.

3. Independent system claim: Recites a system (one or more processors, memory, executable instructions) that accesses data for at least one formation that has produced hydrocarbons, performs a statistical analysis, provides a model, history-matches the model for each formation, and forecasts hydrocarbon production for another formation by plugging its data into each history-matched model. (Note: this claim is framed more broadly around "formation that has produced hydrocarbons" rather than strictly "shale gas formation.")

The specification's dependent-subject matter includes: generating sets of production curves from the statistical analysis; fitting/decline-curve matching (exponential, hyperbolic, harmonic); extrapolating curves in time (e.g., ~30 years for EUR); using Pave curves for history matching; sensitivity analysis to select parameters; modeling matrix, natural fractures, hydraulic fractures, and stimulated fractures; Langmuir desorption/sorption physics; and using simulation results to control equipment (drilling, stimulation, production).

CAFC / docket search results

• No CAFC (Federal Circuit) docket or 2026 appeal activity was found for this specific patent. My searches for "9910938" in connection with CAFC, PTAB, or litigation returned no entries tied to this patent.
• Watch for identifier confusion: The searches surfaced unrelated documents with similar alphanumeric IDs that are not this patent and should be disregarded: GB 9910938 A (a 1999 UK patent application for a medical diagnostic system), BR9910938A (a Brazilian application for a well fluid-flow device), and "Citation Nr. 9910938" (a 1999 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs appeal decision). None relate to Schlumberger's shale-gas patent.
• One search for the patent number returned an empty result set, so I could not independently confirm the absence of every possible docket entry; the statement above reflects the searches actually performed.

Sources

• Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9910938/en
• Justia: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9910938
• USPTO PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/5e/05/e8/222110ec32eeb2/US9910938.pdf

Residual uncertainty

• Exact claim numbering and verbatim independent-claim language could not be verified because the claims section was not included in the provided text; the overview above is faithful to the Summary/Abstract but is not a claim-by-claim quotation.
• No litigation, IPR, or CAFC activity was identified, but the CAFC-specific docket search returned no results rather than a definitive "no record" confirmation from an official docket database.

I'll conduct a thorough search of patent litigation sources for US Patent 9,910,938.

The initial searches surfaced only an unrelated patent (7,669,938, the "Element Six" case) — not our patent. Let me dig deeper into dedicated litigation databases.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent 9,910,938 B2 ("Shale gas production forecasting")

Bottom line: I found no litigation involving US Patent 9,910,938 B2. No district-court complaints, no PTAB/IPR proceedings, no ITC investigations, and no CAFC appeals tied to this patent were located in any of the searches I ran (including searches targeted at the Unified Patents portal, CourtListener/RECAP, RPX Insight, Justia, Google Patents, and general web/PACER-indexed sources).

Searches performed and what they returned

Identifier-confusion warnings (disregard these — they are NOT this patent)

• U.S. Patent 7,669,938 — A January 2014 declaratory-judgment complaint (Element Six U.S. v. Schlumberger/Novatek/Hall, via RPX Insight document 10531206) concerns the '938 patent, but that is 7,669,938, a different patent involving synthetic diamond/abrasive technology. It has no relation to 9,910,938.
• GB 9910938 A — a 1999 UK patent application for a medical diagnostic system.
• BR9910938A — a Brazilian application for a well fluid-flow device.
• "Citation Nr. 9910938" — a 1999 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs appeal decision.
• Archive.org "9910938" — a 1986 floppy-disk product order number in a German retail catalog.

None of these is US 9,910,938 B2.

Confidence assessment

• High confidence in the negative finding for the sources actually searched. The specific patent number was searched verbatim across general web, Justia, Unified Patents, RPX Insight, and CourtListener-indexed content, and no litigation referencing it surfaced.
• Residual caveat: Several of my searches returned empty result sets rather than definitive "no record" confirmations from an official docket database (PACER's full-text docket index and the Unified Patents portal's internal case list were not directly queryable through the tools available to me). It is therefore possible, though I found no evidence of it, that an early-stage filing (e.g., a complaint filed within the last few weeks that has not yet been indexed) could exist. If this matter is material to your analysis, the authoritative confirmations would be:
  • PACER (pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov) — nationwide party-name search on "Schlumberger" and patent number;
  • Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — patent-number search;
  • RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com) — patent litigation search;
  • PTAB (ptab.uspto.gov) — IPR/PGR search; and
  • CourtListener's Docket & RECAP search (www.courtlistener.com) for "9910938".

Statement for your record

As of April 26, 2026, no known litigation, IPR, PGR, ITC investigation, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US Patent 9,910,938 B2 was identified from publicly indexed sources. If litigation exists, it was not indexed in the sources searched (Google, Justia, Unified Patents, RPX Insight, CourtListener/RECAP). Verification against PACER and the PTAB should be performed before relying on this negative finding for freedom-to-operate or valuation purposes.

Proceedings overview

Total count: 0 AIA trial proceedings on file. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) returns no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method proceedings for US Patent 9,910,938 as of the most recent ingest, and independent web searches for the patent number in combination with "IPR," "PGR," "PTAB," "Patent Trial and Appeal Board," and "Unified Patents" returned no results tied to this patent. That means there are no active proceedings, no instituted trials, no Final Written Decisions, no settlements, and no Federal Circuit appeals for this patent. Bottom line for a defendant: this patent has never been challenged at the PTAB — it is untested, not hardened, and equally importantly, no prior-art ground has been foreclosed by § 315(e)(2) estoppel.

No proceedings to report

There are no AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) to summarize for US 9,910,938. Per the canonical USPTO ODP record included in this prompt:

"The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."

• Type: N/A (none filed)
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A — no proceeding exists
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The absence of PTAB activity is itself a meaningful data point — see the Strategic summary below.

Confirmation of the negative result: Searches performed on 2026-08-26 for "US9910938" OR "9910938B2" with PTAB terms and for "9,910,938" with IPR/PGR/Unified Patents terms returned empty result sets or only the patent's own Justia/Google Patents pages. The only Schlumberger IPRs surfaced by the searches involve different patents — e.g., IPR2017-01576, IPR2017-01577, IPR2017-01579, IPR2017-01580 (Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, filed 2017-06-13, challenging US Patent 8,905,133) — and are not directed to 9,910,938. Do not conflate those dockets with this patent.

Strategic summary

Claims status: all 18 claims UNTESTED. No PTAB tribunal has ever evaluated claims 1–18 of 9,910,938 for validity. The patent issued on 2018-03-06 (after a 1,210-day term adjustment per the USPTO PDF), and — as of today, roughly 8.5 years post-issuance — no AIA petition has been filed against it. From the claim language now confirmed via the Justia claims listing (which resolved the residual uncertainty flagged in the earlier summary), the independent claims are: claim 1 (method, including the sensitivity-analysis-based history matching and "controlling at least one piece of equipment" limitations), claim 12 (non-transitory computer-readable storage media), and presumably a system claim (the Justia excerpt shown covers through claim 14; the remaining claims were not visible in the search results but the specification supports an 18-claim count). None of these have been challenged.

Estoppel landscape — wide open. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has ever been filed or instituted, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding anyone. Every prior-art ground that could have been raised remains available to a defendant: § 102 anticipation and § 103 obviousness combinations over the references listed on the face of the patent (e.g., Banerjee US 2009/0084545 A1; Craig US 2011/0125476 A1; Enchery US 2012/0158378 A1; Duong, "Rate-decline analysis for fracture-dominated shale reservoirs," SPE 2011; Frantz et al., "Evaluating Barnett shale production performance," SPE 2005; Cipolla et al., "Modeling Well Performance in Shale-Gas Reservoirs," SPE 125532; Du et al., "A Workflow for Integrated Barnett Shale Gas Reservoir Modeling and Simulation," SPE 122934; Javadpour et al., "Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale Gas Sediments," JCPT 2007; Arps, "Analysis of Decline Curves," 1944; Galvao et al., "Probabilistic Reserves and Resources Estimation," SPE 2012) and any additional art developed since issuance. If you are a defendant being asserted against today, you are free to assemble the strongest invalidity case without carving out previously-litigated grounds — subject only to the § 315(b) one-year-from-complaint bar if you are served, which must be watched carefully.

Pattern signals — none on this patent; context on the assignee. No repeat petitioner has targeted this patent, no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in any chain, and there is no sign of patent-owner PTAB appeal behavior specific to this patent. The surrounding pattern, however, is that Schlumberger does get challenged at the PTAB: Halliburton filed a coordinated set of IPRs against Schlumberger in 2017 (e.g., IPR2017-01576, terminated-settled 2018-06-13) on other oilfield patents, and Schlumberger's WesternGeco subsidiary lost claims to IPR invalidation in the PGS/WesternGeco streamer-patent saga. So the absence of a challenge to 9,910,938 is not because Schlumberger is never attacked — it likely reflects that this patent (a shale-gas forecasting workflow, not a core hardware system) has simply not been the subject of an active dispute worth a six-figure IPR spend, or that potential challengers settled/avoided litigation. For an accused infringer, the practical takeaway: the patent is virgin territory at the PTAB, and the first petitioner gets a clean shot with no estoppel baggage.

Recommended next steps

• No FWD exists to link — there is no PTAB opinion, no claim cancellation, and no disposition to quote. If you are preparing an invalidity defense, you are writing on a blank slate; do not reference any IPR outcome for this patent, because none exists.
• Check the § 315(b) clock immediately. The single most important deadline: if you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of 9,910,938, any IPR petition must be filed within one year of service (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)). Confirm the service date on the docket and calendar the deadline — missing it forfeits IPR entirely for you and any privy.
• No pending milestones — there are no institution-decision deadlines, oral-hearing dates, or FWD due dates to track, because no trial has been instituted.
• Consider district-court alternatives. With no PTAB estoppel constraints, evaluate: (1) a § 101 eligibility motion (the claims are directed to statistical analysis/forecasting plus an equipment-control hook — Alice/Mayo analysis is live and untested for this patent); (2) § 112 definiteness/written-description challenges (note the specification's express disclaimer of § 112 ¶ 6 treatment); and (3) § 102/103 grounds over the art of record plus any newer art. Each of these is fully available today precisely because no AIA proceeding has ever been filed.
• Monitor the ODP and PTAB E2E periodically — the "no proceedings" status is current as of the last ODP ingest; a petition can be filed at any time, and if one lands, the institution decision is typically due within about 3 months of the petition's filing, with a Final Written Decision due no later than 12 months from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)).

Plain-language answer to the original question: No IPR, PGR, or CBM has ever been filed on US 9,910,938 — there are no claim-level outcomes, no judge panels, no settlements, and no appeals to report. The patent is fully intact and completely untested at the PTAB; a defendant facing assertion should treat this as an open battlefield, not a hardened target, and should act before the § 315(b) one-year bar closes the IPR door.

Inventors

Pattern note: All three inventors executed an "Assignment of Assignors' Interest" in favor of Schlumberger Technology Corporation (recorded 2014-03-06 per Google Patents legal events; assignors listed as DUBOST, FRANCOIS XAVIER; NAVARRO ROSALES, RAFAEL; MORALES GERMAN, GABRIELA). The inventor cities (Mexico City, Lee, Idron) correspond to Schlumberger offices, consistent with a routine employer-assignment. I have no data indicating any inventor departed Schlumberger within 12 months of filing — I could not find departure dates and will not speculate.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Schlumberger Technology Corporation (a U.S. subsidiary of Schlumberger Limited, now branded SLB, NYSE: SLB).
• Products embodying the claims: Yes. The specification itself describes implementation within Schlumberger's commercial simulation frameworks — ECLIPSE™, INTERSECT™, and PETREL® (petroleum exploration/production software) — and the claimed history-matched-surrogate-model forecasting workflow is squarely within those products' functionality.
• Primary line of business: Oilfield services and technology (reservoir modeling, drilling, stimulation, production software and services).
• Current status: Operating. Schlumberger Limited remains a publicly traded, active company (rebranded to SLB in 2022). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of the parent was found.

Assignment timeline

Based on all sources I could access (Google Patents legal-events feed, Justia, and general web searches), exactly one recorded assignment is visible for this patent — the original inventors-to-company assignment. I was unable to retrieve the reel/frame number or correspondent of record for this entry from public web sources (the USPTO Assignment Center requires direct database access, which I could not complete within this session), so I will not fabricate a reel/frame.

• 2013 (executed, prior to/at filing) / recorded 2014-03-06 — Reel not retrievable from available sources
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (per Google Patents: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Gabriela Morales German; Rafael Navarro Rosales; Francois Xavier Dubost (the three inventors)
  • Assignee: Schlumberger Technology Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Standard employer assignment from inventors to the filing company — the only assignment event in the visible record.

Finding: No post-issuance assignments, mergers, name changes, security interests, or licenses appear in the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 9910938. Google Patents continues to list Schlumberger Technology Corp as the Current Assignee. Unless the USPTO Assignment Center (which I could not query directly) holds an unindexed record, the original assignee still owns this patent. This is itself a meaningful finding: it is the opposite of the pattern seen when a portfolio is being staged for NPE assertion.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9910938
    2012 : Priority provisional filed
    2013 : US application filed by Schlumberger
    2014 : Inventors assign rights to Schlumberger
    2018 : Patent issued to Schlumberger

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded transfer is inventors → Schlumberger Technology Corporation, an operating oilfield-services company with shipped products (Petrel/Eclipse/INTERSECT). No transfer to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" LLC appears in the record (recorded 2014-03-06 assignment event).
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee other than Schlumberger appears in the chain. None of the tracked NPE names (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) appear.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. With only one recorded assignment and no retrievable correspondent name or reel/frame, recurrence cannot be assessed. No NPE-assertion-list correspondent can be tied to this file.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No consecutive assignments through chained entities exist in the visible record.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement litigation naming US 9910938 was found in prior CAFC/PTAB/docket searches, so there is no litigation event against which to measure a transfer window.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Schlumberger has not filed bankruptcy; no court-sale conveyance is recorded.
7. Privateering — not present. No transfer from Schlumberger to an NPE for assertion against competitors is recorded, and no SEC filings or Patent Progress/EFF coverage indicating privateering was found.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at Schlumberger itself.

Verdict

Insufficient data — with the important qualification that every piece of evidence actually obtained points away from any NPE pattern. Only the original inventors→Schlumberger assignment (recorded 2014-03-06) appears in the record; no reel/frame numbers, correspondents, or post-issuance conveyances could be verified from public web sources, and the USPTO Assignment Center could not be queried directly in this session. The current assignee per Google Patents remains Schlumberger Technology Corporation — an operating company that ships the very software (Petrel/Eclipse/INTERSECT) in which the claimed method is embodied — and no litigation, privateering, or shell transfers were found. Nothing in the available record supports an NPE or troll characterization; the "insufficient data" verdict reflects the incompleteness of the assignment-chain verification, not any affirmative finding of suspicious activity.

For definitive confirmation, search the USPTO Patent Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 9910938 (and application number 13/918,249) to pull the reel/frame, correspondent of record, and confirm whether any additional conveyances exist beyond the single 2014 inventors' assignment.

The first search surfaced the official "References Cited" section from the USPTO-issued PDF (US009910938B2), which is authoritative. It lists three U.S. patent publications and a substantial list of non-patent literature. Let me verify the details of each cited reference, starting with the three U.S. publications, and also pull the full citation list from Google Patents.

I have the official References Cited list from the patent PDF. Now let me get precise bibliographic details (titles, dates) for each of the three cited U.S. patent publications.

I have reached the step limit for additional searches, but I have what I need to answer from the authoritative source: the USPTO-issued patent PDF (US009910938B2), whose "References Cited" section was returned verbatim in the search results. Below is the prior-art analysis based on that official citation list, cross-checked against search results where available.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 9,910,938 B2 ("Shale gas production forecasting")

Methodological notes (read first)

1. Source of the citation list. The USPTO-issued PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/5e/05/e8/222110ec32eeb2/US9910938.pdf) is authoritative. Its "References Cited" section lists three U.S. patent documents and fifteen non-patent literature (NPL) items. This is the complete examiner-gathered record; no foreign patent documents are listed on the face of the patent.
2. Identifier-confusion traps (excluded). Several search hits with similar alphanumeric IDs are not this patent and were excluded: GB 9910938 A (1999 UK medical-diagnostic application; its U.S. counterpart is US 6,599,241, Murphy), BR9910938A (Brazilian well-fluid device), "US 9910938 W" (a 1999 PCT application number for an unrelated bearing seal, EP 0998640), and US 2024/0289899 A1 / CA2828717C / US7983885B2 (later forward citations citing the '938 patent — relevant to claim scope/derivation, not prior art to it).
3. Claim-text caveat. The issued claims were not in the text provided to me; the mapping below is keyed to the three independent claim types as summarized from the Abstract/Summary (method / computer-readable medium / system) and the dependent subject matter described in the specification. A verbatim claim-by-claim anticipation chart requires the issued claims column, which I flag as the one gap in this analysis.
4. Statutory regime. Application filed June 14, 2013, claiming priority to provisional 61/662,292 (June 20, 2012). Because the provisional predates the AIA's March 16, 2013 effective date, the claims are examined under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 (first-to-invent) if priority is validly claimed. Every reference below predates June 20, 2012 (with one timing caveat noted for Enchery), so all qualify as prior art under § 102(a)/(e).

Key for claim-element mapping (based on the summarized claims):

• Element A — provide/access data for at least one (shale gas) formation that has produced hydrocarbons
• Element B — perform a statistical analysis on the data for each formation (e.g., P10/P50/Pave/P90 production curves)
• Element C — provide a simulation model (matrix, natural fractures, hydraulic fractures, stimulated fractures; desorption physics)
• Element D — history-match the model for each formation based on the statistical analysis → a history-matched model per formation
• Element E — forecast production for a different formation by plugging its data into each history-matched model (surrogate-model forecasting)

Part 1 — U.S. patent documents cited

1. US 2009/0084545 A1 — Banerjee

• Full citation: Banerjee (inventor); published April 2009; classified E21B 49/00, US class 166/250.15 — the identical US class as the '938 patent itself, indicating the examiner's closest classified art. Marked with an asterisk (*) in the References Cited section, denoting particular relevance. (The patent face gives no assignee; I could not confirm the application's title from the searches performed — do not rely on any title I might guess.)
• Description: Well-testing/well-evaluation disclosure in the same US classification (automatic control for production) as the claimed invention; per its classification it concerns evaluating a producing well and using production-related data.
• § 102 anticipation potential: Element A (well production data) and plausibly element B in a single-well sense. No evidence it discloses multi-formation statistical analysis, per-formation history matching, or surrogate plug-in forecasting (Elements C–E). Weak single-reference anticipation of the full independent claims; more useful as § 103 combinable art.

2. US 2011/0125476 A1 — Craig

• Full citation: Craig (inventor); published May 2011; classified E21B 43/16 (enhanced-recovery methods), US class 703/10 (simulation/modeling). (Title and assignee not confirmed from my searches — flagged as unverified.)
• Description: Simulation-modeling disclosure in the E21B 43/16 space; US 703/10 indicates it is directed to a data-processing/simulation technique for hydrocarbon recovery.
• § 102 anticipation potential: Elements C (simulation model) and possibly D (history matching) in a general reservoir context. No evidence it is shale-gas-specific, discloses P10/P50/P90 statistical curves, or teaches plugging a new formation's data into each of multiple history-matched surrogate models (Elements B and E). Not a credible single-reference anticipation of the independent claims.

3. US 2012/0158378 A1 — Enchery (confirmed via search)

• Full citation: Enchery, et al.; "Method of developing a petroleum reservoir from a flow model calibrated through pressure and saturation map scaling"; published June 2012; assignee IFP (Institut Français du Pétrole / IFP Energies nouvelles); classified G01V 11/00, US class 703/2 (simulation). Granted counterpart: US 8,868,390 B2 (confirmed via patents-review.com and the granted PDF).
• Description: Discloses a history-matching method that calibrates a flow model (grid-based numerical reservoir model) to dynamic data — production data and 4D seismic data — by minimizing an objective function between simulated and measured data (pressure and saturation map scaling/downscaling). General reservoir history matching, not shale-gas specific.
• § 102 anticipation potential: Elements C and D (providing a model; history matching it to production data) are squarely disclosed. However, it lacks the shale-gas formation limitation, the per-formation statistical P10/P50/P90 curve analysis (Element B), and the multi-formation surrogate forecasting step (Element E). Timing caveat: published June 2012 — if the precise publication date (likely June 28, 2012) falls after the June 20, 2012 provisional filing date, its § 102(a) printed-publication date would be after the provisional, though its § 102(e) effective date (its own earlier U.S. application filing, ~2011) would still predate the '938 priority date. I could not confirm the exact publication day; treat the § 102(a) timing as a residual uncertainty.

Part 2 — Non-patent literature cited (all asterisk-marked NPL)

Closest to the statistical-analysis and decline-curve elements (B and dependent EUR features)

4. Duong, Anh N., "Rate-decline analysis for fracture-dominated shale reservoirs," SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 1403 (2011): 377–387.

• Discloses a rate-decline analysis methodology for fracture-dominated (shale) reservoirs to forecast production and estimate ultimate recovery — directly on point for the specification's decline-curve fitting and EUR extrapolation.
• § 102: Anticipates the statistical/decline-curve sub-elements of Element B and the dependent EUR-extrapolation features, but teaches no simulation model, no history matching, no multi-formation surrogate plug-in (Elements C–E absent).

5. Valko, Peter P., "Assigning Value to Stimulation in the Barnett Shale: A Simultaneous Analysis of 7000 Plus Production Histories and Well-Completion Records," SPE 119369, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, Jan. 19–21, 2009, 20 pp.

• Statistical analysis of 7,000+ well production histories — the closest prior art to the patent's large-dataset statistical normalization step (and to the P10/P50/P90-type distribution analysis).
• § 102: Strong on Element B (statistical analysis of multi-well production data); does not disclose the simulation-model history matching or surrogate forecasting (Elements C–E).

6. Frantz, Joseph H., et al., "Evaluating Barnett Shale Production Performance — Using an Integrated Approach," SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2005.

• Integrated evaluation of Barnett Shale well performance using normalized production data and type-curve/decline analysis — relevant to Element B (normalization and trend cases).
• § 102: Element B partially; no simulation-model history matching or surrogate forecasting.

7. Galvao, Mauricio, et al., "Probabilistic Reserves and Resources Estimation: A Methodology for Aggregating Probabilistic Petroleum Reserves and Resources," SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference & Exhibition, Mar. 22, 2012.

• Discloses P10/P50/P90 probabilistic reserves-and-resources aggregation — the direct antecedent of the patent's P10/P50/Pave/P90 statistical framework.
• § 102: Strong on the probabilistic-curve element of Element B; nothing on simulation-model history matching or cross-formation surrogate forecasting.

8. Arps, J. J., "Analysis of Decline Curves," Transactions of the AIME, vol. 160(1), Houston Meeting, May 1944, pp. 228–247.

• The foundational exponential/hyperbolic/harmonic decline-curve analysis — the patent's own dependent features recite these exact curve types (q(t)=qᵢ·exp(−a·t); hyperbolic; harmonic).
• § 102: Anticipates the curve-type sub-elements of the dependent claims only (and as a 1944 paper, it is decades-old baseline art). Does not touch Elements C–E.

Closest to the simulation-model and history-matching elements (C and D)

9. Cipolla, et al., "Modeling Well Performance in Shale-Gas Reservoirs," SPE 125532, SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference, Abu Dhabi, Oct. 19–21, 2009, 16 pp.

• Discloses shale-gas reservoir simulation with complex/non-planar hydraulic fractures, natural fractures, dual-porosity, and sorption — the closest single reference to the patent's model constructs (matrix, natural fractures, hydraulic fractures, stimulated fractures) and desorption physics.
• § 102: Strong on Element C; includes history matching of shale models (Element D partially). Still lacks the per-formation statistical-curve-driven matching and multi-formation surrogate forecast (Elements B and E).

10. Matthews, et al., "Simulation of Gas Shales: They're All the Same — Right?," SPE 106070, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, TX, Jan. 29–31, 2007, 16 pp.

• Compares simulation approaches across gas shales, addressing whether one model can serve multiple shales — conceptually near the patent's surrogate-model idea but in a modeling-comparison sense, not the claimed statistical-calibration workflow.
• § 102: Element C partially; not a full anticipation of the method claim.

11. Du, et al., "A Workflow for Integrated Barnett Shale Gas Reservoir Modeling and Simulation," SPE 122934, Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena, May 31–Jun. 3, 2009, 12 pp.

• Discloses an integrated Barnett Shale modeling-and-simulation workflow including history matching and production forecasting — the closest overall workflow analog to Elements C–D.
• § 102: Elements C and D (history matching) plausibly disclosed; no P10/P50/P90 statistical curve set (B) and no plug-in of a different formation into each of multiple matched models (E).

12. Zhang, et al., "Sensitivity Studies of Horizontal Wells with Hydraulic Fractures in Shale Gas Reservoirs," IPTC 13338, IPTC, Doha, Dec. 7–9, 2009, 9 pp.

• Discloses sensitivity analysis of shale-gas horizontal-well/hydraulic-fracture parameters — the antecedent of the patent's sensitivity-analysis-aided history matching.
• § 102: Element D's sensitivity sub-feature; not a standalone anticipation.

Supporting / contextual art (weakest for § 102)

13. Javadpour, et al., "Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale Gas Sediments," Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, vol. 46(10), Oct. 2007, 7 pp. — Gas-flow physics in nanodarcy shale; supports the matrix-flow modeling sub-feature of Element C.

14. Bybee, et al., "Proper Evaluation of Shale-Gas Reservoirs Leads to a More-Effective Hydraulic-Fracture Stimulation," JPT, vol. 61(7), Jul. 2009, pp. 59–61. — Shale evaluation and stimulation; contextual only.

15. Lewis, et al., "New Evaluation Techniques for Gas Shale Reservoirs," Reservoir Symposium, Schlumberger, 2004, 11 pp. — Schlumberger's own shale evaluation techniques; contextual (same assignee as '938).

16. Waters, et al., "Simultaneous Hydraulic Fracturing of Adjacent Horizontal Wells in the Woodford Shale," SPE 119635, SPE HFTC, The Woodlands, TX, Jan. 19–21, 2009, 22 pp. — Woodford Shale completions; relevant because Woodford is one of the four analogue formations used in the '938 specification, but only as background data source.

17. Scotia Waterous, "European Shale Gas Overview," Feb. 2010, 43 pp. — European shale-gas exploration report; contextual for the "new exploration area" (e.g., Silurian shale) scenario, not an anticipation candidate.

18. "A Dynamic Global Gas Market," Oilfield Review, Autumn 2003, pp. 4–7. — Market context; negligible § 102 weight.

Part 3 — Overall § 102 (anticipation) assessment

Bottom line: No single cited reference appears to disclose every element of the independent method, medium, or system claims as summarized. In particular, the combination that defines the invention — (i) a statistical production-curve analysis per formation, (ii) a separate history-matched simulation model generated for each of the known formations based on that analysis, and (iii) forecasting a different, data-limited formation by plugging its data into each of the history-matched surrogate models — is not found in any one reference:

• Element A (production data for a producing formation): Banerjee '4545; Frantz; Valko.
• Element B (statistical P10/P50/P90 curves): Valko 2009, Galvao 2012, Duong 2011, Frantz 2005 — the strongest cluster.
• Element C (shale simulation model with matrix/natural/hydraulic/stimulated fractures + desorption): Cipolla 2009, Matthews 2007, Du 2009, Javadpour 2007.
• Element D (history matching): Enchery '8378 (generic reservoir), Du 2009, Cipolla 2009, Zhang 2009 (sensitivity).
• Element E (cross-formation surrogate forecasting): not disclosed in any single cited reference. The closest conceptual disclosures — Matthews ("are they all the same?") and the surrogate-model notion in the specification itself — do not teach the claimed statistical-calibration-plus-plug-in workflow.

Accordingly, the cited art is collectively far more potent under § 103 obviousness than under § 102 anticipation: e.g., a Valko/Galvao-type statistical analysis combined with a Cipolla/Du/Enchery history-matched shale model would arguably render the claimed workflow obvious. The examiner evidently used these references in that manner, though the file wrapper (not retrieved in my searches) would confirm the exact § 102/103 rejections made during prosecution.

Confidence and residual uncertainties

• High confidence: the References Cited list reproduced above is the complete official prior-art record on the face of US 9,910,938 B2; the Enchery reference's title/assignee/granted counterpart (US 8,868,390 B2) is confirmed by search results; all NPL citations and dates are quoted verbatim from the patent PDF.
• Unverified: exact titles/assignees of the Banerjee '4545 and Craig '5476 publications (their classifications and dates are from the patent face, which is authoritative); the exact day-of-month of Enchery's June 2012 publication (affects only the § 102(a) vs. § 102(e) timing analysis, not its status as prior art); and the verbatim issued-claims text, which is required for a claim-by-claim anticipation chart. If you supply the claims column, I can produce an element-by-element § 102/103 chart for each reference above.

I have the reference list from the face of the patent (the USPTO PDF's "References Cited" section). Now let me verify the content of the three U.S. patent documents cited and a few key non-patent literature items so the obviousness analysis is grounded in what each reference actually teaches.

Confirmed: US 2009/0084545 A1 is Schlumberger's own "Method for Managing Production from a Hydrocarbon Producing Reservoir in Real-Time" (issued as US 8,244,509 B2). Now let me verify the other two U.S. references and the key non-patent literature.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US Patent 9,910,938 B2 ("Shale Gas Production Forecasting")

Scope and evidentiary basis

This analysis is built on the References Cited section appearing on the face of the patent, which I retrieved from the USPTO PDF (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/5e/05/e8/222110ec32eeb2/[US9910938](/patent/US9910938).pdf). The cited art consists of three U.S. patent documents and fifteen non-patent literature items. I verified the content of one U.S. reference (Banerjee) and the identity of the full citation list directly; two U.S. references (Craig, Enchery) are described here from their face-of-patent classification codes and are flagged where full-text verification was not possible in this session.

Effective-filing-date note: Because the patent claims benefit of Provisional Application 61/662,292 (filed June 20, 2012) — before the March 16, 2013 AIA transition — pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 governs. The practical difference is immaterial for the combinations analyzed below, since every reference is prior art under both regimes (all published before June 20, 2012).

1. The claimed invention (element map)

The independent claims (per the Summary/Abstract, which track the three independent claim types) require:

1. Data provision/access — data for at least one formation that has produced hydrocarbons (shale gas in the method and medium claims);
2. Statistical analysis — performed on the data for each formation (specification: generates P10/P50/Pave/P90 production curves);
3. Simulation model provision — a reservoir simulation model (specification: models matrix, natural fractures, hydraulic fractures, stimulated fractures; dual-porosity + sorption/desorption);
4. Per-formation history matching — the simulation model is history-matched for each known formation based at least in part on the statistical analysis, producing a separate history-matched model per formation;
5. Forecasting for a different formation — production for "another" shale gas formation is forecast by plugging that formation's data into each generated history-matched model (surrogate/proxy model use).

The specification's dependent-subject matter adds: decline-curve fitting (exponential/hyperbolic/harmonic per Arps), time extrapolation (~30 years for EUR), sensitivity-analysis-guided history matching, Langmuir desorption physics, and equipment control based on simulation output.

The most distinctive (and therefore most attackable-in-isolation) element is step 5 — using per-formation history-matched models as surrogates for an unrelated, data-poor formation. As shown below, this is exactly the "analog basin" practice well documented in the cited art itself.

2. The person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA would be a reservoir engineer or petroleum engineer with 3–5 years' experience in unconventional (shale/tight-gas) reservoir evaluation, competent in (a) decline-curve analysis (Arps, Duong methods), (b) statistical aggregation of well data into type curves, (c) reservoir simulation and history matching with commercial simulators (e.g., ECLIPSE™), and (d) exploration appraisal using analog plays. The cited art is all within this person's standard reading: SPE papers and Schlumberger/IFP patent literature.

3. Prior art references and what each teaches

U.S. Patent Documents

Non-patent literature (key items)

• Valko, SPE 119369 (2009) — "Assigning Value to Stimulation in the Barnett Shale: A Simultaneous Analysis of 7000 Plus Production Histories and Well-Completion Records." Statistical analysis of thousands of wells to derive production type curves — the direct antecedent of the claimed P10/P50/P90-type statistical characterization of a shale gas formation.
• Frantz et al., SPE ATCE (2005) (cited with *) — "Evaluating Barnett Shale Production Performance Using an Integrated Approach." Normalized type curves and performance evaluation for shale wells.
• Arps, Trans. AIME 160 (1944) — "Analysis of Decline Curves." The canonical exponential/hyperbolic/harmonic decline-curve fitting that the specification expressly adopts (it even reproduces the Arps equations).
• Duong, SPE REE 14(3) (2011) (cited with *) — "Rate-decline analysis for fracture-dominated shale reservoirs." Shale-specific decline analysis and forecasting — the modern refinement of Arps for fractured shales.
• Matthews et al., SPE 106070 (2007) — "Simulation of Gas Shales: They're All the Same—Right?" Reservoir simulation of gas shales; dual-porosity modeling; demonstrates that gas-shale simulation physics (matrix, natural fractures, hydraulic fractures, desorption) is standard.
• Cipolla et al., SPE 125532 (2009) — "Modeling Well Performance in Shale-Gas Reservoirs." Simulation constructs for complex fracture networks, stimulated rock volume.
• Du et al., SPE 122934 (2009) — "A Workflow for Integrated Barnett Shale Gas Reservoir Modeling and Simulation." An integrated workflow from geological model → simulation → history matching for a shale gas reservoir — the closest single teaching of the claimed pipeline's front half.
• Zhang et al., IPTC 13338 (2009) — "Sensitivity Studies of Horizontal Wells with Hydraulic Fractures in Shale Gas Reservoirs." Sensitivity analysis to identify parameters with greatest production impact — the specification's history-matching-focusing step.
• Galvao et al., SPE/EAGE (Mar. 2012) (cited with *) — "Probabilistic Reserves and Resources Estimation: A Methodology for Aggregating Probabilistic Petroleum Reserves and Resources." P10/P50/P90 probabilistic reserves methodology — the statistical framework underlying the claimed P10/P50/Pave/P90 curves.
• Scotia Waterous, "European Shale Gas Overview" (Feb. 2010) — Documents the industry's active practice of applying U.S. shale-play learnings and analogs to data-poor European exploration basins — the exact motivation for the claimed surrogate-model forecasting step.
• "A Dynamic Global Gas Market," Oilfield Review (Autumn 2003); Javadpour 2007 (nanoscale gas flow); Lewis 2004; Bybee 2009; Waters 2009 — background on shale gas storage/flow and stimulation; contextual support that all claimed physics was known.

The examiner's * markers on Banerjee, Craig, Enchery, Duong, Frantz, and Galvao indicate these were the substantive references applied in prosecution — i.e., the examiner already viewed combinations of these as the closest art.

4. Primary obviousness combinations

Combination A — The "statistical type curves + decline curve + simulation" pipeline

References: Valko 2009 (or Frantz 2005) + Arps 1944 (or Duong 2011) + Du 2009 (or Matthews 2007 / Cipolla 2009) + Galvao 2012.

This combination accounts for claim elements 1–4:

• Statistical analysis (element 2): Valko's simultaneous statistical analysis of 7,000+ Barnett production histories to derive type curves, combined with Galvao's P10/P50/P90 probabilistic reserves methodology, renders obvious the claimed per-formation statistical analysis producing P10/P50/Pave/P90 production curves. Frantz 2005 shows the same normalized-type-curve practice for Barnett.
• Decline-curve fitting/extrapolation (dependent subject matter): Arps 1944 and Duong 2011 render obvious fitting production curves with exponential/hyperbolic/harmonic decline curves and extrapolating to ~30-year EUR. The '938 specification literally reproduces the Arps equation forms.
• Simulation model + history matching (elements 3–4): Du 2009 discloses an integrated Barnett shale gas modeling-and-simulation workflow including history matching; Matthews 2007 and Cipolla 2009 disclose the dual-porosity, multi-media (matrix/fractures/desorption) simulation constructs. History matching a simulator to production data is the routine practice confirmed by Enchery 2012/0158378 and Craig 2011/0125476 (per their classifications).

A PHOSITA would combine these because they are sequential steps of a single, standard workflow taught piecemeal across the same SPE literature: aggregate well data statistically → fit/extrapolate decline curves → build and history-match a simulation model. Du 2009 already assembles most of the pipeline for one formation; the only addition is replacing single-well data with Valko-type statistical type curves — an obvious substitution of an input data source, yielding predictable results.

Combination B — Adding the surrogate/analog forecasting step (element 5)

References: Combination A + Scotia Waterous 2010 (European Shale Gas Overview) + Oilfield Review 2003 + Banerjee 2009/0084545.

This combination addresses the claimed invention's most distinctive element — forecasting for "another" formation by plugging its data into each history-matched model:

• Scotia Waterous 2010 documents the industry practice of transferring U.S. shale play knowledge (Barnett, Haynesville, Fayetteville, Woodford — the exact formations the '938 specification uses as its examples) to European exploration basins with sparse data. The '938 specification itself states the problem in precisely these terms ("several shale gas exploration projects are under-way in diverse regions of the world, including Europe and Africa") and cites the very report documenting the analog practice.
• The "analog model" concept — taking a calibrated model from one reservoir, re-parameterizing it with a target reservoir's data, and running forecasts — is a routine reservoir-engineering technique. A history-matched model is, by definition, a validated surrogate; re-parameterizing it for a new formation and simulating is the obvious engineering extension of the analog-basin practice. The specification admits as much in defining "surrogate model": "a model ... history matched using data from a formation other than a formation of interest."
• Banerjee 2009/0084545 supplies the final "use simulation results to control operations" step (the specification's equipment-control dependent subject matter), teaching generation of simulation results and performing oilfield operations based on them.

Motivation: The industry had a documented, concrete problem (unconventional gas exploration in data-poor basins) and a documented solution pattern (analog transfer from well-characterized U.S. plays — see Scotia Waterous 2010). Applying multiple calibrated models to bound uncertainty (optimistic-to-pessimistic cases) is the natural extension of probabilistic reserves practice (Galvao 2012). This is the classic "combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" — KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

Combination C — Sensitivity-analysis-guided history matching (dependent subject matter)

References: Zhang 2009 + Du 2009 + Cipolla 2009.

Zhang 2009 expressly teaches sensitivity studies of horizontal wells with hydraulic fractures in shale gas reservoirs to identify parameters with the greatest impact — the specification's stated purpose for focusing history matching (Fig. 11 tornado plot). Combining this with Du 2009's integrated workflow and Cipolla 2009's fracture-network modeling is the obvious way to make history matching tractable for multi-parameter shale models. A PHOSITA would be motivated by computational cost and the well-known ill-posedness of history matching to restrict tuning to sensitive parameters.

5. Why a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine (explicit reasons)

1. Same field, same problem, same literature: All references are petroleum-engineering publications addressing shale gas / unconventional reservoir evaluation and forecasting. The '938 specification cites them all on its face; the examiner designated six as substantive (*). There is no "teaching away" — the references are complementary, not competing.
2. Standard sequential workflow: Statistical type-curve generation (Valko/Frantz/Galvao) → decline-curve extrapolation (Arps/Duong) → simulation and history matching (Matthews/Cipolla/Du/Enchery/Craig) are stages of one conventional evaluation pipeline. Combining them is a "simple substitution of one known element for another" and "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods" (KSR).
3. Documented market need: The Oilfield Review 2003 global-gas-market article and Scotia Waterous 2010 European overview demonstrate the recognized commercial motivation to forecast production in new shale basins from established U.S. analogs. The claimed surrogate-model forecasting is the obvious computational embodiment of that industry practice.
4. Predictable result: History matching a simulator to statistical type curves for each known formation, then re-parameterizing for a new formation, produces the claimed per-formation forecasts through routine simulation runs. No unexpected property or new physical discovery is claimed; the specification's own examples (Barnett/Woodford/Haynesville/Fayetteville → Silurian field) are presented as ordinary engineering trials.
5. Known physics: The dual-porosity/desorption modeling (Matthews 2007, Cipolla 2009, Javadpour 2007) was established before the priority date; the claims add no new model physics, only a workflow arrangement.

6. Weaknesses in the obviousness case (counterarguments)

A robust analysis should acknowledge where the § 103 case is weakest:

• No single reference discloses the full pipeline end-to-end. Du 2009 comes closest for one formation but does not disclose the multi-formation "plug-in" surrogate step. If the examiner and applicant treated the combination of (a) statistical type-curve analysis, (b) per-formation history matching, and (c) surrogate-model plug-in as a synergistic whole rather than a mere aggregation, the obviousness case is weaker.
• The "plugging in" step's specificity: While analog practice is documented, I did not locate a single pre-2012 reference expressly disclosing "plugging data for a target formation into each of multiple history-matched models of different formations to generate multiple forecast cases." The multi-model uncertainty-bracketing design (P10–P90 across surrogate formations, Fig. 5/12) may be argued as a non-obvious arrangement producing a new result — though the KSR "obvious to try" and "predictable variation" rationales would apply.
• Unverified references: Craig and Enchery were not full-text verified this session. If their actual disclosures are narrower than their classifications suggest, Combination A's history-matching leg still stands on Du 2009 / Matthews 2007 / Cipolla 2009 alone, so the combination is not dependent on them.
• Prosecution history: The patent issued after the examiner applied the *-marked references, meaning the applicant overcame at least some § 103 rejection(s) — the final claims are presumably narrowed relative to what the examiner initially rejected. Without the prosecution history (file wrapper) I cannot state the precise ground finally overcome; the combinations above should be tested against the issued claims, whose verbatim text was not available in the materials provided.

7. Bottom-line assessment

• Strongest § 103 case: Combination A (Valko/Frantz + Galvao + Arps/Duong + Du/Matthews/Cipolla, with Enchery/Craig and Zhang as support) for elements 1–4 — statistical type-curve analysis feeding decline-curve-extrapolated, history-matched shale-gas simulation models. This is a straightforward assembly of well-known, same-field techniques with documented motivation and predictable results.
• Moderate-to-strong case: Adding Scotia Waterous 2010 and Oilfield Review 2003 to reach element 5 (surrogate-model forecasting for a data-poor "other" formation) — the analog-basin motivation is explicitly documented in the cited art itself, but no single prior-art reference discloses the specific multi-model plug-in protocol.
• Weakest points: the exact multi-formation, multi-curve architecture and any claim language requiring the specific per-formation history-matched surrogate ensemble; these may need reliance on the "obvious to try" rationale with a strong evidentiary showing that the number of viable approaches was small.

Verification recommendation (if this analysis is material): obtain (a) the issued claims text and file wrapper from USPTO Patent Center, and (b) full texts of Craig (US 2011/0125476 A1) and Enchery (US 2012/0158378 A1), before relying on this analysis for invalidity, FTO, or valuation decisions.