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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 July 2026 have been fully considered. The 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to amendments. However, due to amendments a 101 rejection is made as discussed below.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract limitations, including:
generating a regression model based on magnetic field signals in the legacy drilling data;
calculating a residual signal based on the legacy drilling data by comparing at least one gravitational field signal in the legacy drilling data to gravitational field components that are output through application of the regression model based on the at least one gravitational field signal; and
identifying one or more drilling anomalies associated with the operation of the drilling tool in the wellbore based on an application of the trained machine-learning model to the real-time or near real-time residual signal data.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional elements of:
retrieving legacy drilling data from one or more databases, the legacy drilling data comprising orientation data for an associated drilling tool;
training a machine-learning model based on the residual signal for detecting drilling anomalies associated with operation of the drilling tool;
accessing real-time or near real-time residual signal data generated from sensor data of one or more sensors of the drilling tool while the drilling tool is operating in a wellbore; and
adjusting one or more drilling operation parameters of the drilling tool while the drilling tool is operating in the wellbore based on the one or more drilling anomalies, the one or more adjusted drilling operation parameters of the drilling tool adjusts the operations of the drilling tool.
Claim 8 further recites the additional elements: one or more processors, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored therein, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the operation.
Claim 15 further recites the additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored therein, which when executed by one or more processors, causes the processor to perform operations.
“[R]etrieving legacy drilling data from one or more databases, the legacy drilling data comprising orientation data for an associated drilling tool” 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)).
“[T]raining a machine-learning model based on the residual signal for detecting drilling anomalies associated with operation of the drilling tool” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic training of a generic machine-learning model (i.e., “apply it”).
“[A}ccessing real-time or near real-time residual signal data generated from sensor data of one or more sensors of the drilling tool while the drilling tool is operating in a wellbore” 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)).
“[A]djusting one or more drilling operation parameters of the drilling tool while the drilling tool is operating in the wellbore based on the one or more drilling anomalies, the one or more adjusted drilling operation parameters of the drilling tool adjusts the operations of the drilling tool” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e., “apply it”).
The additional elements of the generic computer equipment (i.e., processors and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium) and the use of the generic computer equipment is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
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).
As discussed above, “retrieving legacy data from one or more databases” and “accessing real-time or near real-time signal data” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “retrieving” and “accessing” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations 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).
Examiner further notes that the type of data (i.e., “residual signal data generated from sensor data of one or more sensors of the drilling tool while the drilling tool is operating in a wellbore”) merely narrows the type of data. The claim language, under BRI, merely recites accessing a specific type of data not the actual act of collecting the data with the sensors.
With respect to the training of the machine-learning model, this element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts 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 the elements are anything other than generic computing elements (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“[A]djusting one or more drilling operation parameters of the drilling tool while the drilling tool is operating in the wellbore based on the one or more drilling anomalies, the one or more adjusted drilling operation parameters of the drilling tool adjusts the operations of the drilling tool” merely amount to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., adjusting a drilling operation parameter) to an identified problem (i.e., drilling anomalies) 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)).
With respect to the processors and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and their use, 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 (see 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.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 further recite:
the legacy drilling data comprises at least one magnetic field signal and at least one gravitational field signal;
the legacy drilling data is associated with anomaly data indicating one or more anomalies detected during a drilling operation performed with the drilling tool;
the legacy drilling data is associated with two or more geographic locations; and
the legacy drilling data is associated with two or more drilling tools which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, “training the machine-learning model based on the residual signal further comprises: receiving anomaly data associated with the drilling tool; and providing the anomaly data to the machine-learning model for correlation with the residual signal” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “receiving” and “providing” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations 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).
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, “the machine-learning model is configured to perform anomaly detection” merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations since it is an abstract limitation 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.
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
20 July 2026
Prosecution Insights