DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/15/2025 has been entered.
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 Amendment
Applicant has amended the independent claims to include the limitations “that form the basis of an auto regressive model” and “including the basis of the auto regressive model”. Applicant has provided citations to paragraphs in the specification which include support for the additions of such limitations. Examiner has confirmed that the cited sections adequately support the newly added language to the claims.
The newly-added limitations change the scope of the claims so as to limit the training of the decision-tree-based model with training data “including the basis of the autoregressive model”. Accordingly, this change in scope necessitated further search and consideration of the claimed matter.
Response to Arguments
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the pending claims allegedly recite techniques for altering the operation of a well which improves the technological field of wells and integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant provides excerpts from the specification ¶161 in support of this argument.
Examiner disagrees that the excerpt provides adequate support for the improvement of the technological field of wells. The referenced excerpt from the specification states “the models can be used for more than just determining whether, where, and how to drill new wells- they can use actual well production to predict proposed and existing well performance more accurately”. This statement is an admission that the claimed invention (the models) are an improvement of mental process (i.e. determining and predicting) to achieve “more accurate” results. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” The mechanism by which the alteration of well operation (so as to improve wells) is not apparent by the specification.
Applicant further argues that the pending claims particularly recite the alteration of a choke or lift on a well based on the predicted GOR. Applicant argues that Examiner’s previous suggestion that the examined claims recited such alteration in an “unspecified and non-specific way” is incorrect because supposedly one of skill in the art would understand the potentially complex alterations of a choke or lift on a well based on predicted GORs.
Examiner disagrees because altering a choke or life based on a predicted value generated from a model does not provide a specific solution to a particular problem but instead recites the idea of an outcome or a solution without providing details as to how the solution as achieved. Stating that a person having skill in the art would recognize the potentially complex alterations of a choke or lift and merely stating “based on” does not indicate a clear link between the predicted value and how such information influences the alteration of the choke or lift. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.”.
Applicant further argues that Examiner’s analysis is relevant to the memo provided by the Office on August 4, 2025 regarding “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding applicant’s reliance on the August 2025 memorandum clarifying how examiners should apply § 101 (“Memo”) and the decision of the Appeals Review Panel in Ex parte Desjardins, No. 2024-000567 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2025), Examiner notes that the Memo explicitly states that it “is not intended to announce any new USPTO guidance or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.”
Applicant argues that the pending claims do not invoke computers or other machinery as “merely a tool to perform an existing process” but instead “the claims purport to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology”. Applicant further asserts that the claims as a whole provide improvement to technology or a technical field.
Examiner disagrees. The recitation and use of an autoregressive model and a decision-tree based model are recitations of generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable performance of the mental process of prediction. The specificity by which the models are described are not described in the claims in such a way that an inventive concept would provide an improvement to such computing components. Any purported improvement in the claims flows as a direct consequence to the improvement in, or a direct result of the abstract idea(s) itself.
For the reasons stated in this response, in conjunction with the rejection provided in this action, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been maintained.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that the cited art does not teach or suggest features incorporated as part of the amendments to the independent claims, particularly with regard to the training data and subsequently training a decision-tree-based model with the training data including the basis of the autoregressive model. Applicant specifically argues that none of the data disclosed by Anderson is used for forming the basis of an autoregressive model included in training data for training the decision-tree-based model. Applicant acknowledges that the data of Anderson is utilized in various models but argues that the ensemble learning method disclosed by Anderson is not the same technique as disclosed in the instant application which does not involve training data including data from autoregressive models for training a decision tree based model. Applicant further acknowledges that Anderson discloses the utilization of several autoregressive models for time series classification tasks but further argues that the disclosed methods are different from the claimed invention.
Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection set forth in this action does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection for the subject matter being specifically challenged in the applicant’s argument.
The new grounds set forth relies on Meek for the challenged limitations, wherein Meek discloses and Autoregressive Tree model wherein time-series data is used to construct an autoregressive model via transformation and subsequently the transformed dataset is used to learn/train a decision tree for the target variable ((Meek, Page 229 ¶2) " Roughly speaking, we construct ART models as follows. First, we use a standard \windowing" transformation of a time-series data set into a set of cases suitable for a regression analysis, where the \predictor variables" and \target variable" in the analysis correspond to the preceding values and current value, respectively, in the time series. This transformation is often used when constructing autoregressive models. Then, we use the transformed data set to learn a decision tree for the target variable.")
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of the claim recites “The method of claim 1”, however Claim 1 is a system claim which conflicts with such reference. For purposes of this examination, Examiner has assumed that this is a typographical error and should instead read “The system of claim 1”. Alternately the claim could be modified to instead recite “The method of claim 14”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “that form the basis of an autoregressive model”. “The basis” lacks antecedent basis. Further, Claims 5, 6 recite “a basis” after the introduction of “the basis” in the respective independent claims which creates ambiguity as to whether the recitations are referring to the same element or not. For purposes of this examination, the initial recitation in the independent claims has been interpreted to recite “that form a basis of an autoregressive model” and the recitations in claims 5 and 6 are interpreted to recite “the basis” such that the claims all refer to such basis as a singular element.
The dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, 15-17, 19, and 21 incorporate the deficiency of the independent claims and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-6, 8-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Particularly, recitation of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) are noted. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). (MPEP 2106.04)(a-b)
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04)(d)
Step 2B Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II). (MPEP 2106.05)
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 21 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim limitations that have been identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in bold. Claim 1 recites wherein the one or more predicted production values are generated by the decision-tree-based model based on an internal structure of the decision-tree-based model, the new time-independent input feature values, and the new time-dependent input feature values, wherein the one or more predicted production values of the well include a predicted gas oil ratio (GOR); The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the internal structure of the model, the new time-independent input feature values, and the new time-dependent input feature values to derive predicted production values. This task can be done within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation includes the usage of a decision-tree-based model, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. The claim also recites the limitation wherein each further predicted production value of the further predicted production values is recursively generated by the decision-tree-based model based on the internal structure of the decision tree- based model using (i) ground-truth initial production values of the well, (ii) a set of the one or more predicted production values of the well, and (iii) a set of prior further predicted production values, wherein the further predicted production values of the well include further predicted GORs; which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing ground truth initial production values, a set of the one or more predicted production values, and a set of prior further predicted production values to further predict production values by leveraging a recursive decision-tree-based model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid because the task is executing algorithmic steps on known data sources. The limitation includes the usage of a decision-tree-based model, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2a Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics. With regard to the limitations: “persistent storage containing training data related to well production, wherein entries in the training data respectively include time-independent input feature values and time-dependent input feature values both mapped to ground-truth production values of corresponding wells at particular points in time, wherein the time-dependent input feature values include ground-truth production values of the corresponding wells at respectively earlier points in time that form the basis of an autoregressive model; and one or more processors configured to” and “train a decision-tree-based model with the training data including the basis of the autoregressive model”. These limitations have been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because they limit the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). These limitations are further characterized as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim limitations invoke the use of computing components (persistent storage, one or more processors, training a decision tree based model) as tools to perform an existing process. The courts have also found that invoking the use of generic computing components does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations: “obtain, from the persistent storage, the training data”; “provide, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”; “receive, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well”; “receive, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well”; and “write, to the persistent storage, the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and” have been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution activity of necessary data gathering and outputting MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The limitation “alter a choke or a lift on the well based on the predicted GOR and the further predicted GORs generated using the decision-tree-based model” has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to merely utilizing the value obtained in the mental process in an unspecified and generic way to alter a choke or lift of the well which amounts to the recitation of “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception. The courts have found that reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as linking the judicial exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and merely reciting the words “apply it” as in Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which the courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities: “obtain, from the persistent storage, the training data”; “provide, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”; “receive, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well”; “receive, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well”; and “write, to the persistent storage, the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and.” When read in light of the specification, these activities are recited at a high level of generality to be data gathering and outputting. The claim limitation “obtain, from the persistent storage, the training data” encompasses retrieving information in memory. The claim limitation “provide, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”, when read in light of the specification ¶47-58 encompasses transmitting data over a network. The limitation “receive, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well,” and “receive, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well” when read in light of the specification ¶47-58 encompasses receiving data over a network. The limitation and “write, to the persistent storage, the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values” encompasses storing information in memory. The Insignificant Extra Solution Activities of necessary data gathering at outputting, as receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, are recognized by the court as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14:
Step 1: Claim 14 and its dependent claims 15-17 and 19 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim limitations that have been identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in bold. Claim 14 recites wherein the one or more predicted production values are generated by the decision-tree-based model based on an internal structure of the decision-tree-based model, the new time-independent input feature values, and the new time-dependent input feature values, wherein the one or more predicted production values of the well include a predicted gas oil ratio (GOR); and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the internal structure of the model, the new time-independent input feature values, and the new time-dependent input feature values to derive a predicted production value. This task can be done within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation includes the usage of a decision-tree-based model, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. The claim also recites the limitation wherein each further predicted production value of the further predicted production values is recursively generated by the decision-tree-based model based on the internal structure of the decision-tree-based model using (i) ground-truth initial production values of the well, (ii) a set of the one or more predicted production values of the well, and (iii) a set of prior further predicted production values, wherein the further predicted production values of the well include further predicted GORs; which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing ground truth initial production values, a set of the one or more predicted production values, and a set of prior further predicted production values to further predict production values by leveraging a recursive decision-tree-based model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid because the task is executing algorithmic steps on known data sources. The limitation includes the usage of a decision-tree-based model, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2a Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics. With regard to the limitations: “wherein entries in the training data respectively include time-independent input feature values and time dependent input feature values both mapped to ground-truth production values of corresponding wells at particular points in time, wherein the time-dependent input feature values include ground-truth production values of the corresponding wells at respectively earlier points in time that form the basis of an autoregressive model”; and “training a decision-tree-based model with the training data including the basis of the autoregressive model”; these limitations have been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). These limitations are further characterized as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim limitations invoke the use of computing components (persistent storage, one or more processors, training a decision tree based model) as tools to perform an existing process. The courts have also found that invoking the use of generic computing components does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations: “obtaining, from persistent storage, training data related to well production”; “providing, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well,”; and “writing, to the persistent storage, the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and” have been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution activities of necessary data gathering and outputting MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The limitation “altering a choke or a lift on the well based on the predicted GOR and the further predicted GORs generated using the decision-tree-based model.” has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to merely utilizing the value obtained in the mental process in an unspecified and generic way to alter a choke or lift of the well which amounts to the recitation of “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception. The courts have found that reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as linking the judicial exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and merely reciting the words “apply it” as in Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which the courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities: “obtaining, from persistent storage, training data related to well production”; “providing, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well”; and “writing, to the persistent storage the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and”. When read in light of the specification, these activities are recited at a high level of generality to be data gathering and outputting. The claim limitation “obtaining, from persistent storage, training data related to well production” encompasses retrieving information in memory. The claim limitation “providing, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”, when read in light of the specification ¶47-58 encompasses transmitting data over a network. The limitation “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well and writing, to the persistent storage, the one or more predicted production values” and “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well,” when read in light of the specification ¶47-58 encompasses receiving data over a network. The “limitation and “writing, to the persistent storage the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and” encompasses storing information in memory. The Insignificant Extra Solution Activities of necessary data gathering at outputting, as receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, are recognized by the court as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20:
Step 1: Claim 20 is directed to an article of manufacture which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim limitations that have been identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in bold. Claim 14 recites wherein the one or more predicted production values are generated by the decision-tree-based model based on an internal structure of the decision-tree-based model, the new time-independent input feature values, and the new time-dependent input feature values, wherein the one or more predicted production values of the well include a predicted gas oil ratio (GOR); . The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the internal structure of the model, the new time-independent input feature values, and the new time-dependent input feature values to derive a predicted production value. This task can be done within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation includes the usage of a decision-tree-based model, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. The claim additionally recites the limitation wherein each further predicted production value of the further predicted production values is recursively generated by the decision-tree-based model based on the internal structure of the decision-tree-based model using (i) ground-truth initial production values of the well, a set of the one or more (ii) predicted production values of the well, and (iii) a set of prior further predicted production values, wherein the further predicted production values of the well include further predicted GORs; which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing ground truth initial production values, a set of the one or more predicted production values, and a set of prior further predicted production values to further predict production values by leveraging a recursive decision-tree-based model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid because the task is executing algorithmic steps on known data sources. The limitation includes the usage of a decision-tree-based model, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2a Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics. With regard to the limitations: “wherein entries in the training data respectively include time-independent input feature values and time-dependent input feature values both mapped to ground-truth production values of corresponding wells at particular points in time, wherein the time-dependent input feature values include ground-truth production values of the corresponding wells at respectively earlier points in time that form the basis of an autoregressive model”; and “training a decision-tree-based model with the training data including the basis of the autoregressive model”; these limitations have been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). These limitations are further characterized as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim limitations invoke the use of computing components (persistent storage, one or more processors, training a decision tree based model) as tools to perform an existing process. The courts have also found that invoking the use of generic computing components does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations: “obtaining, from persistent storage, training data related to well production”; “providing, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well”; and “writing, to the persistent storage, the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and” have been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution activity of necessary data gathering and outputting MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The limitation “altering a choke or a lift on the well based on the predicted GOR and the further predicted GORs generated using the decision-tree-based model.” has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to merely utilizing the value obtained in the mental process in an unspecified and generic way to alter a choke or lift of the well which amounts to the recitation of “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception. The courts have found that reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as linking the judicial exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and merely reciting the words “apply it” as in Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which the courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities: “obtaining, from persistent storage, training data related to well production”; “providing, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well”; “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well,”; and “writing, to the persistent storage, the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and”. When read in light of the specification, these activities are recited at a high level of generality to be data gathering and outputting. The claim limitation “obtaining, from persistent storage, training data related to well production” encompasses retrieving information in memory. The claim limitation “providing, to the decision-tree-based model, new time-independent input feature values and new time-dependent input feature values for a well”, when read in light of the specification ¶47-58 encompasses transmitting data over a network. The limitation “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more predicted production values of the well” and “receiving, from the decision-tree-based model, further predicted production values of the well,” when read in light of the specification ¶47-58 encompasses receiving data over a network. The “limitation and “writing, to the persistent storage the one or more predicted production values and the further predicted production values; and” encompasses storing information in memory. The Insignificant Extra Solution Activities of necessary data gathering at outputting, as receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory, are recognized by the court as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Ordered Combination:
With regard to the dependent claims, limitations are analyzed both individually and as part of the ordered combination. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, dependent claims do not appear to substantially change the functionality of the device as a whole beyond what is noted previously in their respective independent claims analysis. For the sake of brevity, the discussion of the ordered combination in view of the dependent limitations has not been restated.
Dependent Claims:
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 2 recites additional element “wherein the time-independent input feature values relate to lateral lengths of the corresponding wells, proppant pumped into the corresponding wells, fluid pumped into the corresponding wells, or porosity of rock in which the corresponding wells are respectively disposed”. This limitation has been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional elements viewed as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The additional element amounts to no more than field of use and technological environment which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 3 recites additional element “wherein the time-dependent input feature values include inter-well spacing values, artificial lift, choke, pressure, or whether the corresponding wells are parent wells”. This limitation has been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional element viewed as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The additional element amounts to no more than field of use and technological environment which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 4 recites additional element “wherein the ground-truth production values represent volumes of hydrocarbons or water extracted from the corresponding wells”. This limitation has been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional elements viewed as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The additional element amounts to no more than field of use and technological environment which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the ground-truth production values of the corresponding wells at respectively earlier points in time are data that form a basis of an order 1 autoregressive model, which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing historical data points in an order 1 autoregressive model. When read in light of the specification, an autoregressive model can be expressed as a mathematical formula (Instant Specification, ¶163-167). Thus, this limitation includes recitation of the mathematical concept of Mathematical Formulas or Equations (2106.04(a)(2)(1)(B)). Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A Prong 1). The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), nor amount to significantly more (Step 2B) than the judicial exception. This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 6 additionally recites limitations wherein the ground-truth production values of the corresponding wells at respectively earlier points in time are data that form a basis of an order 2 autoregressive model. which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing historical data points in an order 2 autoregressive model. When read in light of the specification, an autoregressive model can be expressed as a mathematical formula (Instant Specification, ¶163-167). Thus, this limitation includes recitation of the mathematical concept of Mathematical Formulas or Equations (2106.04(a)(2)(1)(B)). Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A Prong 1). The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), nor amount to significantly more (Step 2B) than the judicial exception. This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 8 recites additional element “wherein the particular points in time are regular intervals”. This limitation has been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional element viewed as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The additional element amounts to no more than field of use and technological environment which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 8 is further incorporated. Claim 9 recites additional element the regular intervals are 5 days, 10 days, 15 days, 60 days, or 90 days. This limitation has been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional element viewed as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The additional element amounts to no more than field of use and technological environment which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. Claim 10 recites additional element “wherein the time-dependent input feature values include anomalous events”. This limitation has been interpreted as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(h) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). With the additional element viewed as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The additional element amounts to no more than field of use and technological environment which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10 is further incorporated. Claim 11 additionally recites limitations generate a variation of the time-dependent input feature values with the one or more of the anomalous events removed which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the indications of the anomalous events to make a judgement of which time-dependent input feature values are to be removed. This task can be done within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation includes the usage of one or more processors, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. Claim 11 further recites wherein the one or more counterfactual predicted production values are generated by the decision-tree-based model based on the internal structure of the decision-tree-based model, the new time-independent input feature values, and the variation of the time-dependent input feature values, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the structure of the decision-tree-based model along with the new time-independent input feature values and a variation of the new time-dependent input feature values to predict a hypothetical production value. This task can be done within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation includes the usage of one or more processors, which is a computing component recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) and is thus an additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mental process. Therefore, the claim recites judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 1). Claim 11 further recites additional elements “receive indications of one or more of the anomalous events to remove from the time-dependent input feature values”, “provide, to the decision-tree-based model, the new time-independent input feature values and the variation of the time-dependent input feature values for the well; and” and “receive, from the decision-tree-based model, one or more counterfa