DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/05/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the
amendment, claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are amended and claims 5, 12 and 19 are cancelled. Following Applicants arguments and amendments made on 11/13/2024, the 103 rejection of the claims is withdrawn. However, the 101 rejection is still maintained. See office action for detail.
Response to Arguments
Applicant 101 arguments
The Examiner argues that the claims are purportedly directed to a "mental process." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), a mental process is defined as a process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The independent claims recite automatically adjusting, via a fracturing system, at least one of a pumping rate, a perforation gun firing sequence, or a proppant concentration based on the updated optimized perforation schema. Automatically adjusting parameters of a fracturing system based on an updated optimized perforation schema cannot be performed in the human mind. Further, the independent claims recite updating a time saving parameter by controlling an inventory. Controlling an inventory cannot be performed in the human mind. As the undersigned representative's remarks with respect to the Examiner's rejections are sufficient to overcome these rejections, the undersigned representative's silence as to assertions by the Examiner in the Office Action or certain requirements that may be applicable to such rejections (e g , assertions regarding dependent claims, whether a reference constitutes prior art, whether references are legally combinable for obviousness purposes) is not a concession by the undersigned representative that such assertions are accurate or such requirements have been met, and the undersigned representative reserves the right to analyze and dispute such in the future. Regarding step 2A (prong 2) of the Alice analysis, Applicant's claims implement a practical application. The Examiner alleges that the claims purportedly recite a mere gathering step and additional elements allegedly reciting "apply it.". The claims have been amended to recite automatically adjusting, via a fracturing system, at least one of a pumping rate, a perforation gun firing sequence, or a proppant concentration based on the updated optimized perforation schema. Therefore, the claims recite a practical application further than the mere element of "apply it."
Regarding step 2B of the Alice analysis, Applicant's claims include an inventive concept ("something more"). These additional elements include at least the ability to generate an optimized perforation schema, update the optimized perforation schema based on a pressure threshold, automatically adjust at least one parameter of the fracturing system based on the updated optimized perforation schema, generate a time saving parameter for a time to complete a cluster design and a time to complete pumping, and updating the time saving parameter by controlling an inventory to minimize the time saving parameter to a predetermined threshold, where the predetermined threshold includes a reduction of at least 10% of the time required to complete the cluster design and/or the time to complete pumping. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that "automatically adjusting" a fracturing system cannot be done in the mind. While the execution of the adjustment is automated, the decision-making logic (the "perforation schema" and "optimization model") is a mental process or mathematical algorithm. Simply stating that a computer or machine executes the result of an abstract calculation does not stop the claim from being "directed to" that calculation. The idea of adjusting at least one of a pumping rate, a perforation gun firing sequence, or a proppant concentration based on the updated optimized perforation schema could involve a human making decisions about the best settings for optimal results, which is a mental process. The engineer mentally reviews the output of the simulation—the "optimized perforation schema". They evaluate the predicted results (e.g., fluid flow, pressure distribution) and compare them against desired production goals or operational constraints. They use their knowledge of reservoir engineering, fluid dynamics, and well completion techniques to determine how the operational parameters (pumping rate, firing sequence, proppant distribution) need to change to match the optimized schema's requirements. The engineer makes decisions on the specific changes required. For example, they might decide to increase the proppant concentration in a specific zone or alter the firing timing to ensure uniform fracturing. Also, the limitation of “automatically adjusting, via a fracturing system, at least one of a pumping rate, a perforation gun firing sequence, or a proppant concentration based on the updated optimized perforation schema” is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). "Controlling an inventory" is a classic administrative and economic concept. Even if a computer tracks the bins, the logic of inventory management is a fundamental human activity that has been practiced for centuries. It does not become "non-abstract" simply because it is applied to a fracturing well. Under MPEP 2106, merely adding a "well-understood, routine" step of adjusting a pump or firing a gun after performing an abstract calculation is also considered as "insignificant post-solution activity." The "fracturing system" is being used as a generic tool to carry out the results of the math. The claim does not describe how the fracturing system is mechanically improved. It does not recite a new valve, a new gun design, or a new chemical composition. It only recites a change in data values (rate, concentration). This is a "functional" adjustment rather than a technological improvement to the hardware itself.
The Applicant points to the "10% time reduction" and the use of DAS data as an inventive concept. However, a "reduction of at least 10%" is a result-oriented limitation. It describes what the invention hopes to achieve, not the specific technical how. Federal court case Electric Power Group it holds that claiming a desired result without reciting the specific, non-conventional technical means to reach it does not constitute an inventive concept. The use of "fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data" is merely the collection of data from a known sensor. Collecting more accurate data to feed into a known mathematical model is "routine data gathering" and does not satisfy the "significantly more" requirement. "Automatically adjusting" parameters is a standard feature of any modern industrial control system. Combining a mathematical model with a standard control loop is an "ordered combination" of conventional elements. The claim remains directed to the abstract idea of optimizing an industrial schedule and inventory. The physical elements recited are merely generic tools used to implement the abstract idea, and the recited 10% threshold is a result-oriented goal that fails to provide a specific, non-conventional technological solution."
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-4 and 6-7 are directed to process or method, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
Claims: 8-11, 13-14 are directed to system or device, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
Claims: 15-18 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls into the one of the statutory category i.e., manufacture.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1, 8, 15 recites
generating a perforation schema based on the one or more perforation parameters; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Generating a schema involves observing data (perforation parameters), evaluating it against engineering rules, and making a judgment on the optimal design.)
estimating a pressure of the wellbore based on the optimized perforation schema; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
and updating the optimized perforation schema until the estimated pressure is less than a predetermined pressure limit; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The idea of optimizing a system and then checking a condition (pressure limit) is a mental, logical framework. An engineer mentally understands the goal and the steps needed to achieve it.)
adjusting, at least one of a pumping rate, a perforation gun firing sequence, or a proppant distribution based on the updated optimized perforation schema;(Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Adjusting parameters of a fracturing system could involve a human making decisions about the best settings for optimal results, which is a mental process. The engineer mentally reviews the output of the simulation—the "optimized perforation schema". They evaluate the predicted results (e.g., fluid flow, pressure distribution) and compare them against desired production goals or operational constraints. They use their knowledge of reservoir engineering, fluid dynamics, and well completion techniques to determine how the operational parameters (pumping rate, firing sequence, proppant distribution) need to change to match the optimized schema's requirements. The engineer makes decisions on the specific changes required. For example, they might decide to increase the proppant concentration in a specific zone or alter the firing timing to ensure uniform fracturing.)
updating the optimized perforation schema, for a subsequent stage based on the one or more perforation parameters and one or more previous stages. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
generating a time saving parameter based on the time to complete the cluster design and the time to complete the pumping; (this is the mathematical concepts of abstract idea see equation 4 of the specification. The parameter requires data, such as the Time to Complete Cluster Design and Time to Complete Pumping) and
updating the time saving parameter by controlling an inventory until the time saving parameter is minimized to a predetermined threshold, wherein the time saving parameter reduces a number of fracturing stages, and wherein the predetermined threshold includes a reduction of at least 10% of the time to complete the cluster design and/or the time to complete pumping. (Claims involving "updating" the time saving parameter based on "minimizing" to a "threshold" are viewed as acts of evaluation and judgment. The steps of monitoring inventory and calculating a percentage reduction (10%) can be performed by a person using basic calculations, they fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of receiving one or more perforation parameters of a wellbore and receiving one or more completion and treatment variables associated with a time to complete a cluster design and a time to complete pumping are mere data gathering step and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements of “training a stage optimization model based on the perforation schema and measured wellbore treatment data including at least one of surface pressure, proppant concentration, fluid flow rate, or fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing data to generate an optimized perforation schema having an optimized flow distribution and a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution” is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, it’s just using generic AI or machine learning in its normal capacity. Also the limitation of “automatically adjusting, via a fracturing system…” is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply automating a manual process—on a computer does not necessarily remove it from the "mental process" category unless it provides a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., improving how measurements are taken or how a tool is manufactured). The additional elements of a system comprising: a fracturing system operable to perform a perforation schema; one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors in claim 8 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors in claim 15 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of receiving one or more perforation parameters of a wellbore and receiving one or more completion and treatment variables associated with a time to complete a cluster design and a time to complete pumping are mere data gathering steps and thus it falls under insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) The additional elements of “training a stage optimization model based on the perforation schema and measured wellbore treatment data including at least one of surface pressure, proppant concentration, fluid flow rate, or fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing data to generate an optimized perforation schema having an optimized flow distribution and a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution” is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, it’s just using generic AI or machine learning in its normal capacity. Also the limitation of “automatically adjusting, via a fracturing system…” is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply automating a manual process—on a computer does not necessarily remove it from the "mental process" category unless it provides a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., improving how measurements are taken or how a tool is manufactured). The additional elements of a system comprising: a fracturing system operable to perform a perforation schema; one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors in claim 8 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors in claim 15 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply applying an abstract idea using a computer does not make it eligible. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2, 9 and 16 further recites wherein the stage optimization model is configured to generate a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution for each stage of the wellbore. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. If we have the flow rate data for each individual cluster in a stage, we can manually calculate the uniformity index using standard formulas or the area-weighted average. In field operations, this index is used as a proxy for cluster efficiency, often derived from measured or simulated flow distribution across the clusters. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3, 10 and 17 further recites wherein the stage optimization model is configured to generate a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution based on at least one of completion variables, treatment variables, response variables, formation characteristics, derived variables, or a combination thereof. This limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. If we have the flow rate data for each individual cluster in a stage, we can manually calculate the uniformity index using standard formulas or the area-weighted average. In field operations, this index is used as a proxy for cluster efficiency, often derived from measured or simulated flow distribution across the clusters. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4, 11 and 18 further recites wherein the stage optimization model is a machine learning model. It is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6, 13 and 20 further recites wherein the one or more completion and treatment variables include a pumping rate and a volume of pumped fluid. It is further defining claim 5, 12 and 19 which is a mere data gathering step and thus it falls under insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014); The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 and 14 further recites wherein the time to complete the cluster design is an average of an expected time of completing a stage of the wellbore. This limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 is objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejections of the claims. The closest pieces of prior art are the Wang et al. (PUB NO: US 20210131261 A1). CRAMER (PUB NO: US 20220228484 A1), Shelly et al. (US20140067353A1), Dusterhoft et al. (US20170096881A1) and Lopez et al. (US20210017853A1). The closest references alone and in combination do not teach the claimed features such as
generating a time saving parameter based on the time to complete the cluster design and the time to complete the pumping; and
updating the time saving parameter by controlling an inventory until the time saving parameter is minimized to a predetermined threshold,
wherein the time saving parameter reduces a number of fracturing stages, and
wherein the predetermined threshold includes a reduction of at least 10% of the time to complete the cluster design and/or the time to complete pumping.
claimed in the claim 1, 8 and 15. Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are the dependent claims of claim 1. Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are the dependent claims of claim 8. Claims 16-18 and 20 are the dependent claims of claim 15. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shelley, et al. " US 20140067353 A1”.
Discussing a method of optimizing wellbore completion includes gathering wellbore data, screening and processing the gathered wellbore data, utilizing the screened and processed wellbore data to define an optimized model, and utilizing the optimized model to evaluate combinations of available wellbore completion parameters.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186