DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 11, 13, 15 – 17, 19 - 20 and 22 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 11, 16 and 22 are currently amended. Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, 18 and 21 are cancelled.
The instant office action is in response to the amendments dated 09/12/2025.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Amended independent claim 1 recites, among other eligible recitations, that "the model includes a factor graph including a plurality of nodes and directed lines between nodes in the plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes represent variables for model parameters and operators to transform properties from input nodes of the plurality of nodes to output nodes of the plurality of nodes." Applicant respectfully submits that the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mental process is an overbroad characterization of claim 1 that fails to consider the claim as a whole. Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention cannot be reasonably performed by a set of human operators or in the human mind. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (II)(A).
Instead, the claimed invention recites an improved method performed by structured components (e.g., a "processor" and "fluid samples") that perform operations in the real world and have tangible and measurable impacts on the real world and simultaneously improve the functioning of the associated computing devices. Indeed, the act of "acquiring downhole reservoir fluid samples and generating laboratory measurements" is an action that cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind.” (emphasis added)
Applicant provides a conclusory arguments that the recited “factor graph” is not reasonably performed in the mind. Examiner notes that a factor graph with nodes and directed lines can instantly be envisaged and represented on a piece of paper (see the instant application Figure 4). Examiner notes that implementing an abstract idea using a processor does not amount to an inventive concept (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Further, the “acquiring downhole reservoir fluid samples” amounts to insignificant data gathering and covers well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks.)
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention improves the functional of computing devices (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees since implementing the claimed invention requires no more than generic computer elements and functions. Further, implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not amount to a particular machine.
Applicant argues: “Indeed, corelating information utilizing "inference propagation algorithms" and utilizing a "factor graph" is not the way that humans process data, and a human operator would not infer the occurrence of reservoir dynamics processes by generating a model in this manner.”
Applicant argues that the recited “factor graph” is not how a human operator would generate a model. Examiner notes that this is in contrast to arguing that a human operator is precluded from generating a model in this manner. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that the present claims integrate such alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible, computer-readable mediums that integrate multiple and disparate types of real-world computing systems and sampling equipment to … [claim language] … Indeed, the Application describes that this process facilitates the collection of additional data and generating a "more complete model." … The Application then describes that, "[i]n a more complete model" additional processes may be included … facilitate the creation of a "more complete model." The "more complete model" is created through the "fluid sampling process" based on "the prediction that biodegradation occurs." Thus, the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of creating a more complete model through an optimized fluid sampling process based on the prediction provided by the inference propagation algorithms.
Thus, even if the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claimed invention provides a specific, identifiable improvement to the efficiency and accuracy of computer technology”
Applicant argues that the creation of a “more complete model” through the recited “optimizing a fluid sampling process” amounts to a practical application. Examiner notes that the recited “identifying, using the new laboratory measurements, a new reservoir fluid dynamics process of the reservoir; and updating the model using the new reservoir fluid dynamics process” appears to effectuate the argued “more complete model” as part of the abstract idea in combination with insignificant data gathering and covering well-understood, routine, and conventional activity “acquiring new downhole reservoir fluid samples” and “generating new laboratory measurements”. Further, the recited “optimizing a fluid sampling process” is also part of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the efficiency of computer technology is improved. As discussed in the preceding remarks, implementing the claimed invention using generic computer elements and functions does not amount to a particular machine.
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that independent claim 1 is at least directed to unconventional recitations that offer specific technological improvements in computer system operations and amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception … Specifically, the described loop facilitates the generation of a more complete model, thereby allowing for improved interpretations of the relevant processes. This loop amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception because it improves the entire sampling, modeling, and interpretation process.”
Applicant argues that recitations are “unconventional”. Examiner notes that Applicant does not argue specific limitations as being unconventional. As previously remarked, the “more complete model” appears to be part of the abstract idea in combination with insignificant data gathering and covering well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Response to Objections
The replacement sheets for Fig. 4 overcome the objection to the drawings. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive. Amended claim 1 recites “applying … the one or more interference propagation algorithms … determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid” which is covered by the previously recited “applying the one or more inference propagation algorithms to the one or more parameter values to infer whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). Specifically, they both use the model including one or more inference propagation algorithms to infer whether biodegradation markers are present, and then use this inference to generate a prediction that biodegradation occurs. Examiner notes that “determining whether” and “infer whether” are interpreted as covering substantially similar scope since they both recite a possible conclusion (i.e., whether biodegradation markers are present) (see Merriam Webster (determine) 1a “to fix conclusively or authoritatively”) (see Merriam Webster (infer) “to derive as a conclusion from fact or premises”). Therefore, the 112(a) rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 and 112 rejections.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) (and claim 2 – 3, 5 – 7, 9 - 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 17, 19 – 20 and 21 by incorporation of the limitations of the parent claim) method comprising: “applying, via the at least one processor, the one or more inference propagation algorithms to determine whether biodegradation has occurred or has not occurred in the fluid by determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Zuo et al. (US 2016/0348480) teaches identifying biodegradation by inferring from measured biomarkers. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: applying, via the at least one processor, the one or more inference propagation algorithms to determine whether biodegradation has occurred or has not occurred in the fluid by determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid.
Mullins et al. “The Critical Role of Asphaltene Gradients and Data Integration in Reservoir Fluid Geodynamics Analysis” teaches biodegradation markers are useful for biodegradation analysis. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: applying, via the at least one processor, the one or more inference propagation algorithms to determine whether biodegradation has occurred or has not occurred in the fluid by determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid.
Gisolf et al. (US 9664665) teaches analyzing abundance rations using gas chromatography to predict downhole fluid profile. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: applying, via the at least one processor, the one or more inference propagation algorithms to determine whether biodegradation has occurred or has not occurred in the fluid by determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid.
Venkataramanan et al. (US 2006/0155472) teaches fluid properties are predicted for the fluids and uncertainties in predicted fluid properties are derived. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: applying, via the at least one processor, the one or more inference propagation algorithms to determine whether biodegradation has occurred or has not occurred in the fluid by determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid.
Jackson et al. “Mapping and Modeling Large Viscosity and Asphaltene Variations in a Reservoir Undergoing Active Biodegradation” teaches modeling asphaltene gradients which account for biodegradation. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: applying the one or more inference propagation algorithms to the one or more parameter values to infer whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms inferring the biodegradation markers in the fluid.
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, 3, 5 – 11, 13 and 15 – 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method of sampling, modeling and interpreting an evolution of fluids in an oilfield using artificial intelligence comprising: identifying using the laboratory measurements, one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes of a reservoir, wherein the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes includes biodegradation; generating a model for the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the model models interactions over space and time that yield the laboratory measurements, wherein the model includes one or more inference propagation algorithms to infer an occurrence or non-occurrence of the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the interactions over space and time include the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the model includes a factor graph including a plurality of nodes and directed lines between nodes in the plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes represent variables for model parameters and operators to transform properties from input nodes of the plurality of nodes to output nodes of the plurality of nodes; interpreting, using the model, an evolution of fluid in the reservoir over time; and determine whether biodegradation has occurred or has not occurred in the fluid by determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid; using, by the model, the constraints in relating the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes to one or more effects on the fluids in one or more reservoirs and the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes; and optimizing a fluid sampling process in wellbore based on the prediction that biodegradation occurred in the fluid; determine which process occurred using the prediction that the biodegradation occurred; identifying, using the new laboratory measurements, a new reservoir fluid dynamics process of the reservoir; and updating the model using the new reservoir fluid dynamics process. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “identifying” could reasonably and instantly be performed by a person as encompassing desired reservoir fluid dynamics processes or properties. The “generating a model” and “updating the model” is limited only by what “the model models”, and is not limited to any specific form of model such that it could reasonably and instantly be generated in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. The “interpreting” and “using, by the model, the constraints in relating” could reasonably and instantly be performed by a person as encompassing any desired judgement or evaluations. The “determine whether biodegradation has occurred” generically recites making a specific evaluation or judgement, but without reciting any details on how to arrive at said evaluation or judgement, such that it could reasonably and instantly be generated in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. The “generating a prediction” obtains a specifical prediction, but merely is performed “in response to” the output of an algorithm such that it does not recite any details on how to arrive at said prediction, which does not preclude performance in the mind. The ”optimizing” and “determine” reasonably encompasses a person perform a desired optimization using previous model results in combination with evaluations and judgements (see Applicant’s remarks “allow[s] better decisions to be made with regard to measurement acquisition and field exploration and development”). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the steps “identifying” and “generating a model” of the abstract idea are using the at least one processor; acquiring downhole reservoir fluid samples and generating laboratory measurements based on the downhole reservoir fluid samples, wherein the laboratory measurements include gas chromatography; receiving, at the model, one or more parameter values corresponding to the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the one or more parameter values include the laboratory measurements from the downhole reservoir fluid samples; and applying, via the at least one processor, the one or more inference propagation algorithms to the one or more parameter values to; that the “generating a prediction” involves using the one or more inference propagation algorithms; displaying, at a graphical user interface the prediction that biodegradation; receiving, at the graphical user interface in response to displaying the prediction, inputs for controlling constraints of the model with rules for interpreting the evolution of the fluid; the fluid sampling process including testing for markers to; training, using the at least one processor, the model using known values of reservoir fluid dynamics processes; acquiring new downhole reservoir fluid samples using the fluid sampling process; generating new laboratory measurements based on the new downhole reservoir fluid samples. The “processor” and “graphical user interface” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). Further, the “acquiring” and “receiving … one or more parameter values” and “generating” and “testing” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is received, said data merely including measured data which could reasonably have been measured prior to the receiving (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “identifying” and “generating a model” and “determine” and “generating a prediction” of the abstract idea, and the “applying … one or more inference propagation algorithms” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” of the additional elements do not require anything more than generic computer functions. The “applying … one or more inference propagation algorithms to” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” amount to the idea of an outcome since both the algorithms themselves and their implementation are wholly generic, apart from being recited in combination with generic computer components (e.g. “at least one processor”). The “displaying” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is performed merely in combination with generic computer components, and encompasses no more than generic computer functions. The “receiving … inputs for controlling constraints” amounts to insignificant data gathering since the neither the specific constraints nor the manner in which such constraints are formulated are recited, and since the constraints are not explicitly based on the prediction but merely “in response to” the prediction. The ”training, using at least one processor” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome with regard to the generated model. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” and “graphical user interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the recited “acquiring” and “receiving” and “generating” and “displaying” and “testing” are claimed in a generic manner, apart from the generic computer components, and amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network … Presenting offers and gathering statistics”). The “applying … one or more inference propagation algorithms to” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since they do not recite any details on their tangible implementation beyond being recited in combination with a generic “processor”. Looking to the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than considering them individually. Specifically, the “acquiring” and “generating” and “receiving” and “testing” is data gathering for the model, however, the model is not further explicitly relied upon. The “applying … one or more inference propagation algorithms to” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” are linked to the “processor” in a wholly generic manner since they do not recite any details on their tangible implementation. The “displaying” is data outputting for the “generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”, however they operate only after the prediction is generated and without adding anything to said prediction. The “processor” and “graphical user interface” cannot add anything when considered in combination with the other additional elements since it requires no more than generic computer elements having generic computer functions. The ”training, using at least one processor” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome with regard to the generated model requiring no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity (i.e., a processor). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 3 wherein the model includes one or more uncertainties with a value of information. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “model includes” further limits the model by reciting specific elements of the model, however, does not preclude performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 and 7 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 5 determining one or more ranges of values for the one or more parameter values; and Claim 7 determining one or more rules for at least one of the plurality of nodes. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the model is further limited without precluding the “generating” from being performed in the mind. The “determining” reasonably covers a person instantly envisaging ranges or other rules. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 6 further comprising training, using the at least one processor, the model based upon, at least in part, known values of reservoir fluid dynamics processes. The “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). Further, the “training” does not require anything more than generic computer functions. The “training” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites only the idea of an outcome (i.e. a trained model) without reciting the steps to arrive at the trained model. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the “training” amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(II) “Performing repetitive calculations”). Looking to the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than considering them individually. Specifically, the “processor” cannot add anything when considered in combination with the other additional element(s) since it requires no more than generic computer elements having generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 9 applying the one or more inference propagation algorithms to identify a new reservoir fluid dynamics process. The “applying the one or more inference propagation algorithms” and “applying the one or more inference propagation algorithms” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since they recite only the idea of an outcome without reciting the steps to arrive at the intended use. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “applying the one or more inference propagation algorithms” and amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(II) “Performing repetitive calculations”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 10 providing the new reservoir fluid dynamics process to the model. The “providing” amounts to insignificant data inputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the model receives the information. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “providing” amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 22 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 22 displaying, at the graphical user interface, a probable sequence of events causing the biodegradation markers in the fluid. The “displaying” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is displayed. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “displaying” amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system for sampling, modeling and interpreting an evolution of fluids in an oilfield using artificial intelligence comprising: identify one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes or properties of a reservoir, wherein the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes includes biodegradation; generate a model for the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the model models interactions over space and time that yield the laboratory measurements, wherein the model includes one or more inference propagation algorithms to infer an occurrence or non-occurrence of the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the interactions over space and time include the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the model includes a factor graph including a plurality of nodes and directed lines between nodes in the plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes represent variables for model parameters and operators to transform properties from input nodes of the plurality of nodes to output nodes of the plurality of nodes; interpret, using the model, an evolution of fluid in the reservoir over time; determine whether biodegradation has occurred or has not occurred in the fluid by determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; and generate a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms inferring the biodegradation markers in the fluid; optimize a fluid sampling process in a wellbore based on the prediction that biodegradation occurred in the fluid; determine which process occurred using the prediction that the biodegradation occurred; and use, by the model, the constraints in relating the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes to one or more effects on the fluids in one or more reservoirs and the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes or properties; identify, using the new laboratory measurements, a new reservoir fluid dynamics process of the reservoir; and update the model using the new reservoir fluid dynamics process. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “identify” could reasonably and instantly performed by a person as encompassing desired reservoir fluid dynamics processes or properties. The “generate a model” and “update” is limited only by what “the model models”, and is not limited to any specific form of model such that it could reasonably and instantly be generated in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. The “interpret” and “use, by the model, the constraints in relating” could reasonably and instantly be performed by a person as encompassing any desired judgement or evaluations. The “determine” generically recites making a specific evaluation or judgement, but without reciting any details on how to arrive at said evaluation or judgement, such that it could reasonably and instantly be generated in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. The “generate a prediction” obtains a specifical prediction, but merely is performed “in response to” the output of an algorithm such that it does not recite any details on how to arrive at said prediction, which does not preclude performance in the mind. The ”optimize” reasonably encompasses a person perform a desired optimization using previous model results in combination with evaluations and judgements (see Applicant’s remarks “allow[s] better decisions to be made with regard to measurement acquisition and field exploration and development”). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a memory storing one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes or properties; and a processor configured to; the processor further configured to; that the steps “identify” and “generate a model” of the abstract idea are using a processor; that the “identify” is “using the laboratory measurements”; that the step “apply” of the additional elements is using a processor; receive laboratory measurements based on downhole reservoir fluid samples, wherein the laboratory measurements include gas chromatography; receive, at the model, one or more parameter values corresponding to the one or more reservoir fluid dynamics processes, wherein the one or more parameter values include the laboratory measurements from the downhole reservoir fluid samples; apply the one or more inference propagation algorithms to the one or more parameter values to; that the “generate a prediction” involves using the one or more inference propagation algorithms; and a graphical user interface configured to display the prediction that biodegradation occurred in the fluid and receive inputs for controlling constraints of the model with rules for interpreting the evolution of the fluid; the fluid sampling process including testing for markers to; provide instructions to acquire new downhole reservoir fluid samples using the fluid sampling process; train, using the at least one processor, the model using known values of reservoir fluid dynamics processes; receive new laboratory measurements based on the new downhole reservoir fluid samples. The “processor” and “graphical user interface” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). Further, the “identify” and “generate a model” and “determine” and “generate a prediction” of the abstract idea, and the “apply … one or more inference propagation algorithms to” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” of the additional elements, do not require anything more than generic computer functions. The “receive laboratory measurements” and “receive … one or more parameter values” and “receive new laboratory measurements” and “testing” and “acquire” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is received (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “apply … one or more inference propagation algorithms to” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” amount to the idea of an outcome since both the algorithms themselves and their implementation are wholly generic, apart from being recited in combination with generic computer components (e.g. “processor”). The “display” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is performed merely in combination with generic computer components, and encompasses no more than generic computer functions. The “receive inputs for controlling constraints” amounts to insignificant data gathering since the neither the specific constraints nor the manner in which such constraints are formulated are recited, and since the constraints are not explicitly based on the prediction but merely in combination with the “display”. The “train, using the at least one processor” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome with regard to the generated model. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” and “graphical user interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the recited “receive” and “testing” and “acquire” and “display” are claimed in a generic manner, apart from the generic computer components, and amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network … Presenting offers and gathering statistics”). The “apply … one or more inference propagation algorithms to” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since they do not recite any details on their tangible implementation beyond being recited in combination with a generic “processor”. Looking to the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than considering them individually. Specifically, the “receive” and “testing” is data gathering for the model, however, the model is not further explicitly relied upon. The “apply … one or more inference propagation algorithms to” and “using the one or more inference propagation algorithms” are linked to the “processor” in a wholly generic manner since they do not recite any details on their tangible implementation. The “display” is data outputting for the “generate, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction” and the “provide constraints” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”, however they operate only after the prediction is generated and without adding anything to said prediction. The “processor” and “graphical user interface” cannot add anything when considered in combination with the other additional elements since it requires no more than generic computer elements having generic computer functions. The ” train, using the at least one processor” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome with regard to the generated model requiring no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity (i.e., a processor). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 13 wherein the model includes one or more uncertainties with a value of information. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “model includes” further limits the model by reciting specific elements of the model, however, does not preclude performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15 and 17 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 15 determining one or more ranges of values for the one or more parameter values; and Claim 17 determine one or more rules for at least one of the plurality of nodes. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the model is further limited without precluding the “generate” from being performed in the mind. The “determine” reasonably covers a person instantly envisaging ranges or other rules. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 16 further comprising training, using the processor, the model based upon, at least in part, known values of reservoir fluid dynamics processes. The “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). Further, the “training” does not require anything more than generic computer functions. The “training” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites only the idea of an outcome (i.e. a trained model) without reciting the steps to arrive at the trained model. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the “training” amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(II) “Performing repetitive calculations”). Looking to the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than considering them individually. Specifically, the “processor” cannot add anything when considered in combination with the other additional element(s) since it requires no more than generic computer elements having generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 19 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 19 apply the one or more inference propagation algorithms to infer a new reservoir fluid dynamics process. The “applying the one or more inference propagation algorithms” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites only the idea of an outcome without reciting the steps to arrive at the intended use. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “apply the one or more inference propagation algorithms” amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(II) “Performing repetitive calculations”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 20 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 20 providing the new reservoir fluid dynamics process to the model. The “providing” amounts to insignificant data inputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the model receives the information. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “providing” amounts to well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 11, 13, 15 – 17, 19 - 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly for claim 11), it recites “applying … the one or more interference propagation algorithms … determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid”. A review of the specification shows that it is merely disclosed to check for biodegradation markers after biodegradation is inferred and/or that the biodegradation affects the biodegradation markers, which is opposite from the instant claims “applying … the one or more interference propagation algorithms … determining whether biodegradation markers are present in the fluid; generating, using the one or more inference propagation algorithms, a prediction that the biodegradation occurred in the fluid in response to the one or more inference propagation algorithms identifying the biodegradation markers in the fluid” (see Paragraph 41 “In that case, the model may indicate that there may have been biodegradation or gas charge into the oil, and it may suggest testing for biomarkers ( e.g., with 2D GC measurements) to determine which process occurred”, and Figure 4 the biodegradation markers depend from the biodegradation as indicated by the directional arrow
PNG
media_image1.png
69
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
With regard to claims 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 10, 13, 15 – 17, 19 - 20 and 22, they are rejected by virtue of depending from a rejected parent claim, and without reciting additional limitations overcome the deficiency in the parent claim.
Conclusion
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 ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights