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 .
Responsive to the communication dated 09/23/2025
Claims 1, and 3-21 are presented for examination
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 08/02/2021 and 12/11/2024 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 05/27/2021 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Abstract
The abstract dated 05/27/2021 has been reviewed. It has 126 words, and contains no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Finality
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 extension fee 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.
Response to Arguments - 101
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a significant improvement because they recite “specific, technical operations where the identification of sidetrack well parameters is performed via computer-implemented simulations of geological models constrained by a trigger condition, which cannot practically be performed in the mind.”
Examiner responds by explaining that the identification and comparison of sidetrack well parameters to determine candidate sidetrack wells and their parameters i.e. the inventive crux of the application, is indeed a mental process. In particular, identifying the parameters is a mental process equivalent to observing the simulated wells. . For example, a person may look at a representation of a well that goes straight down with no deviations and determine that the trajectory for the well is 0 degrees, look at a well that ends in an underground aquafer and determine that it has a high water saturation, or look at a drawn table of rock properties and determine that the permeability of the rock around the well is approximately 11mD. A person could even determine estimated production parameters based on observing whether or not the well has entered an oil reservoir based on the representation showing reservoir locations. Specifying a number of grid blocks from the existing well merely limits the area within which simulated wells are considered. This representation could be drawn or otherwise merely observed and judged. Doing this “based on the satisfaction of a trigger condition” is merely the act of first mentally looking for certain conditions in the observed wells before making further judgments.
A person could determine candidate sidetracks and their parameters, such as sidetrack depth and direction, by mentally comparing the parameters of the ancillary wells. For example, say there are two simulated ancillary wells A and B, with A being to the east of the existing physical well and B being to the west. Consulting the representation to determine the parameters as described before, the parameters of A and B may show that well A passes through rock with better permeability than well B, or that well B has a water cut of 100% and is producing nothing but water while well A produces a large amount of oil. Based on this parameter comparison, a person could judge that a candidate sidetrack kicked off to the east of the existing physical well towards the simulated location of well A is likely a better candidate for a productive sidetrack than a candidate kicked off towards the less productive region to the west near well B. The use of the different layers when performing the comparison merely clarifies what data is compared to what other data.
Specifying that these wells are simulated within a computer and consist of a generic 3D gridded model with multiple layers amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a general-purpose computer. Further, the actual particularities of these simulations and how they operate are not recited in the claims nor the larger disclosure; in other words, they are not specific.
As the claims amount to no more than a collection of abstract ideas (by which the alleged improvement is facilitated) and generic additional elements, the claims are not successfully integrated into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more. See (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
Additionally, applicant’s arguments that the claims are integrated into a practical application/ provide significantly more because they allegedly increase the speed/efficiency of the process of identifying candidate wells is equivalent to merely claiming the improved speed/efficiency inherent to the use of a computer to perform an abstract idea rather than doing it manually by hand. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
Applicant argues that because the claims provide an improvement to technology in view of McRO
Examiner responds by explaining that the improvement in McRO was in taking an (originally) mental task that could not be automated due to the subjective nature of that task and automating it in a novel way that was distinctly different from the way of previously doing it mentally, importantly explained to a very particular level of specificity.
In contrast, the current claims recite a mental process that can be performed in the human mind and performing those steps using generic additional elements, all recited broadly and with a distinct lack of particularity. The simulation especially is recited very broadly and cannot be considered “particular.” There is not sufficient specificity in the disclosure to reasonably conclude that the operations performed are distinct from how a person would ordinarily perform them. In other words, there is not sufficient particularity in the recitation to conclude that the claims amount to more than performing an abstract idea, but do it using a computer with generic data gathering and insignificant post-solution activity elements.
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 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
A method comprising: identifying, by an electronic system, an existing physical well based on satisfaction of a trigger condition;
Identifying an existing physical well based on the satisfaction of a trigger condition is a mental process equivalent to observing a series of wells and recognizing at least one well that meets certain criteria. For example, a worker at a wellsite may look around to identify the particular well they are supposed to work on upon entering the site, being given the information that the well they are looking for has a water-cut of 100% and is actively producing nothing but water.
Doing this “by an electronic system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a general purpose computer.
Should it be found that this element is not a mental process, it is also an example of mere data gathering.
determining, by the electronic system, one or more simulated parameters related to respective ones of a plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells within a predetermined number of grid blocks from the existing physical well in a three-dimensional (3D) gridded model, wherein the one or more simulated parameters correspond to the trigger condition;
Determining these parameters is a mental process equivalent to observing the simulated wells. For example, a person may look at a representation of a well that goes straight down with no deviations and determine that the trajectory for the well is 0 degrees, look at a well that ends in an underground aquafer and determine that it has a high water saturation, or look at a drawn table of rock properties and determine that the permeability of the rock around the well is approximately 11mD. A person could even determine estimated production parameters based on observing whether or not the well has entered an oil reservoir based on the representation showing reservoir locations. Specifying a number of grid blocks from the existing well merely limits the area within which simulated wells are considered. This representation could be drawn or otherwise merely observed and judged.
The use of a generic simulation with generic 3D gridded models within an “electronic system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
determining, by the electronic system, candidate sidetrack wells by comparing the one or more simulated parameters at different layers of the 3D gridded model and identifying parameters of the candidate sidetrack wells related to the existing physical well based on the plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells and the one or more simulated parameters at different layers of the 3D gridded model;
This is a process that is practical to perform in the human mind. A person could determine candidate sidetracks and their parameters, such as sidetrack depth and direction, by mentally comparing the parameters of the ancillary wells. For example, say there are two simulated ancillary wells A and B, with A being to the east of the existing physical well and B being to the west. Consulting the representation to determine the parameters as described before, the parameters of A and B may show that well A passes through rock with better permeability than well B, or that well B has a water cut of 100% and is producing nothing but water while well A produces a large amount of oil. Based on this parameter comparison, a person could judge that a candidate sidetrack kicked off to the east of the existing physical well towards the simulated location of well A is likely a better candidate for a productive sidetrack than a candidate kicked off towards the less productive region to the west near well B. The use of the different layers when performing the comparison merely clarifies what data is compared to what other data.
The use of a broadly claimed simulation and generic 3D gridded models that include layers within an “electronic system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Additionally, the process of identifying, by an electronic system, an existing physical well based on satisfaction of a trigger condition; determining, by the electronic system, one or more simulated parameters related to respective ones of a plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells within a predetermined number of grid blocks from the existing physical well in a three-dimensional (3D) gridded model, wherein the one or more simulated parameters correspond to the trigger condition; determining, by the electronic system, candidate sidetrack wells by comparing the one or more simulated parameters at different layers of the 3D gridded model and identifying parameters of the candidate sidetrack wells related to the existing physical well based on the plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells and the one or more simulated parameters at different layers of the 3D gridded model; outputting, by the electronic system, an indication of a parameter of a sidetrack well of the candidate sidetrack wells; is equivalent to a process of collecting data, analyzing it, and displaying the results. Such a process is recognized by the courts as an example of a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “ a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
The use of a broadly claimed simulation and generic 3D gridded models that include layers within an “electronic system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
identifying, by an electronic system, an existing physical well based on satisfaction of a trigger condition;
Identifying this information is equivalent to gathering data representative of which well had the occurrence of the trigger condition.
Post-solution activity:
outputting, by the electronic system, an indication of a parameter of a sidetrack well of the candidate sidetrack wells;
Outputting this information is merely the act of presenting the results of the judicial exception, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Should it be found that this element is not Insignificant post-solution activity, it is also Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
drilling the sidetrack well based on the indication, wherein one or more control signals are sent to a wellbore drilling system to cause the drilling of the sidetrack well according to the parameter of the sidetrack well.
Drilling the sidetrack well in response to the results of the judicial exception is merely the process of acting on those results, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Should it be found that this element is not Insignificant post-solution activity, it is also Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
a plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells … in a three-dimensional (3D) gridded model, wherein the one or more simulated parameters correspond to the trigger condition; … simulated parameters at different layers of the 3D gridded model
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the wells are “simulated” without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations; for additional clarity on the generic nature of the simulation see ([Par 32] “In some embodiments, the simulation may include simulation of the formation of the computer-simulated ancillary wells, simulation of production of the computer-simulated ancillary wells, simulation of drilling of the wells, simulation of parameters of the rock at the location of the computer-simulated ancillary wells (e.g., porosity, permeability, or some other value), or some other type of simulation.”)
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Should it be found that this element is not an example of Mere Instructions to Apply, it is also Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity or Mere Instructions to Apply and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
identifying, by an electronic system, an existing physical well based on satisfaction of a trigger condition;
Identifying this information is equivalent to gathering data representative of which well had the occurrence of the trigger condition.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Post-solution activity:
outputting, by the electronic system, an indication of a parameter of a sidetrack well of the candidate sidetrack wells;
Outputting this information is merely the act of presenting the results of the judicial exception, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Should it be found that this element is not Insignificant post-solution activity, it is also Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
drilling the sidetrack well based on the indication, wherein one or more control signals are sent to a wellbore drilling system to cause the drilling of the sidetrack well according to the parameter of the sidetrack well.
Drilling the sidetrack well in response to the results of the judicial exception is merely the process of acting on those results, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Should it be found that this element is not Insignificant post-solution activity, it is also Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
a plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells … in a three-dimensional (3D) gridded model, wherein the one or more simulated parameters correspond to the trigger condition; … simulated parameters at different layers of the 3D gridded model
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the wells are “simulated” without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations; for additional clarity on the generic nature of the simulation see ([Par 32] “In some embodiments, the simulation may include simulation of the formation of the computer-simulated ancillary wells, simulation of production of the computer-simulated ancillary wells, simulation of drilling of the wells, simulation of parameters of the rock at the location of the computer-simulated ancillary wells (e.g., porosity, permeability, or some other value), or some other type of simulation.”)
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Should it be found that this element is not an example of Mere Instructions to Apply, it is also Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (WURC) has found that claim elements that are understood to be Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity are not indicative of Integration into a Practical Solution nor evidence of an Inventive Concept (MPEP 2106.05(d))
WURC:
simulating, by the electronic system based on an occurrence of the trigger condition, a plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells in simulations related to the existing physical well;
This element is an example of Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (WURC), as evidenced by:
Wellbore Planner User Guide ([Page 66 Par 4 – Page 67 Par 7] [Page 363 Par 3-8])
PlanningPro ([Page 1 Par 1-7] [Page 2 Par 1-4] [Page 3 Par 1])
COMPASS Directional Well Planning ([Page 1 Par 3])
Well modelling methods in thermal reservoir simulation ([Abstract] [Page 1 Col 1 Par 1 – Col 2 Par 1])
Rerservoir Simulation… What is it? ([Page 1 Col 1 Par 1 – Par 5])
outputting, by the electronic system, an indication of a parameter of a sidetrack well of the candidate sidetrack wells;
This element is an example of Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (WURC), as evidenced by:
Wellbore Planner User Guide ([Page 66 Par 4 – Page 67 Par 7])
PlanningPro ([Page 1 Par 1-7])
COMPASS Directional Well Planning ([Page 1 Par 1 -2])
Paradigm updates well planning and drilling engineering software ([Page 1 Par 2])
drilling the sidetrack well based on the indication;
This element is an example of Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (WURC), as evidenced by:
Well Types – AAPG wiki ([Page 2 Par 4])
The impact of sidetracking on the wellbore stability ([Abstract] [Page 1 Par 1 – Page 2 Par 4])
Hydrawell – Slot recovery ([Page 1 Par 1-3])
Lowering Cost and Improving the Production Efficiency of Sidetrack Wells in Mature Fields ([Abstract])
a three-dimensional (3D) gridded model … layers of the 3D gridded model
This element is an example of Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (WURC), as evidenced by:
US 7369973 B2 ([Col 14-15])
US 20090248374 A1 ([Par 30, Par 173, Par 238])
US 20170316128 A1 ([Par 29, Par 46, Par 52-53])
US 20170315266 A1 ([Par 4, Par 31-33, Par 61-63, Par 105])
US 20160124116 A1 ([Par 2, Par 24])
US 20080065362 A1 ([Par 14-15, Par 23, Par 33, Par 36])
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “an electronic system, computer-simulated” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 10. The elements of claim 10 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claim 10 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, upon execution of the instructions by one or more processors of an electronic system, are to cause the electronic system to:” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Claim 17. The elements of claim 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claim 17 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “An electronic system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, upon execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, are to cause the electronic system to:” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the indication is a human-readable indication that includes a first field related to a name of the existing physical well and a second field related to the parameter of the sidetrack well.”
This merely clarifies the form of the indication and is therefore merely an extension of the post-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the trigger condition is related to a water- cut threshold of the existing physical well or a gas-oil ratio of the existing physical well.”
This merely clarifies the form of the trigger condition and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere data gathering.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the trigger condition is a predicted future occurrence of the trigger condition based on a simulation of the existing physical well.”
This is merely a clarification of the form of the trigger condition and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere data gathering.
Further, predicting the occurrence of the trigger condition, such as a certain water cut, is a mental process equivalent to estimating when that value is met. For example, if the maximum water cut threshold is 0.5%, the current water cut is 0.3%, and the water cut increases by 0.1% every hour, a person could reasonably predict that the threshold will be crossed in a little over 2 hours.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same elements as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein a computer-simulated ancillary well of the plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells passes through a highest point of a perforation of the existing physical well.”
This merely clarifies the form of the simulated wells and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same elements as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the plurality of computer-simulated ancillary wells include computer-simulated ancillary wells located in opposite lateral directions from the existing physical well.”
This merely clarifies the form of the simulated wells and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same elements as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more simulated parameters are porosity, permeability, water saturation, or gas saturation of the computer-simulated ancillary wells.”
This merely clarifies what specific aspects of the simulation are considered parameters and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the parameter of the sidetrack well is a starting depth of the sidetrack well, a direction of the sidetrack well, or a grade of the sidetrack well.”
This merely clarifies what specific aspects of the sidetrack well are considered parameters and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere instructions to apply and post-solution activity.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the trigger condition is related to a water-cut threshold of the existing physical well.”
This is merely a clarification of the form of the trigger condition and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere data gathering.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the trigger condition is related to a gas-oil ratio of the existing physical well.”
This is merely a clarification of the form of the trigger condition and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere data gathering.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the parameter of the sidetrack well is a starting depth of the sidetrack well.”
This merely clarifies what specific aspects of the sidetrack well are considered parameters and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere instructions to apply and post-solution activity.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the parameter of the sidetrack well is a direction of the sidetrack well.”
This merely clarifies what specific aspects of the sidetrack well are considered parameters and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere instructions to apply and post-solution activity.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the instructions are further to facilitate drilling of the sidetrack well in the direction.”
Drilling the sidetrack well in response to the results of the judicial exception is merely the process of acting on those results, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
(MPEP 2106.05(g) “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).”)
Should it be found that this element is not Insignificant post-solution activity, it is also Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (WURC) has found that claim elements that are understood to be Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity are not indicative of Integration into a Practical Solution nor evidence of an Inventive Concept (MPEP 2106.05(d))
WURC:
Well Types – AAPG wiki ([Page 2 Par 4])
The impact of sidetracking on the wellbore stability ([Abstract] [Page 1 Par 1 – Page 2 Par 4])
Hydrawell – Slot recovery ([Page 1 Par 1-3])
Lowering Cost and Improving the Production Efficiency of Sidetrack Wells in Mature Fields ([Abstract])
Claim 16 recites “wherein the parameter of the sidetrack well is a grade of the sidetrack well.”
This merely clarifies what specific aspects of the sidetrack well are considered parameters and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere instructions to apply and post-solution activity.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the sidetrack well is a graded sidetrack well”
This merely clarifies the form of the sidetrack well and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere instructions to apply and post-solution activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/M.P.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187