DETAILED ACTION
Claims 5-10 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Specification, the objections of the Specification is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 interpretation and rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims not a mathematical concept and are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the equations and calculations are present in the claimed limitations, which indicates the claim contains a mathematical concept. Additionally, Applicant has not pointed to any additional elements that provide the practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology.”
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 5-10 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 5-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of determining a production well flow profile using two math equations, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. The limitation of “
PNG
media_image1.png
596
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
331
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” as drafted, covers the mathematical concept of defining the variables used in the equation. The limitation of “
PNG
media_image3.png
609
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
409
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
259
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” as drafted, covers the mathematical concept an equation used for calculations and the result of a set of calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 6-10 further narrow the abstract idea, identified in the independent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 5 recites “at least one processor” and claim 10 recites “a high-precision thermo-hydrodynamic simulator”, however these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is no particular machine on which the claimed invention is applied.
Dependent claims 6-10 further narrow the abstract idea, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further elements for consideration. Therefore, these dependent claims are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 5 recites “at least one processor” and claim 10 recites “a high-precision thermo-hydrodynamic simulator”, however these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining variables and iterating the method, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claims 7-8 are directed to further limiting the values used in the calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further limiting the type of variable used, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”.
Dependent claim 10 is directed to defining further calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”.
Accordingly, claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davletbaev et al. “Fracture-Based Strategies for Carbonate Reservoir Development”: Also teaches the modeling of stationary and nonstationary flow regimes to determine the point of a quasi-stationary flow regime.
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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147