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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 13 have been amended. Claims 2, 8, and 14 are cancelled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15 are currently pending.
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
Regarding the amendments to the claims, the newly-added matter has been evaluated against the disclosure. Sufficient support is contained within the specification. Examiner agrees that no new matter has been added to the claims.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant has amended the claims to incorporate additional elements. Applicant asserts that the amended claims are not directed to mental process or mathematical evaluation.
Applicant argues that training a physics constrained machine learning model is a patent-eligible limitation that does not recite mathematical concepts. After further consideration, the examiner agrees that the limitation does not explicitly recite a mathematical concept and accordingly the treatment of that limitation as a mathematical concept has been withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that generating a predicted well mass flow data does not recite a judicial exception as a mathematical concept. After further consideration, examiner agrees that no mathematical concept is explicitly recited. Applicant further argues, however, that the prediction cannot be performed practically in the human mind. However, Examiner asserts that a prediction can be performed by a human practically in the human mind. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed in the human mind and those which are performed using a computer. The claimed language appears to be enabling the performance of a mental process by leveraging a computing system that is specified at a high level of generality.
Applicant additionally argues that the amended independent claims are not directed to extra solution activity because the activity of adjusting the physical control elements of a well system provides a practical application of improving operational efficiency over prior systems. Examiner disagrees. The specificity by which is provided in the claims to link the recited mental process is not sufficient enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The element of adjusting the control mechanism to maintain well mass flow performance based on the predicted well mass flow data recites the idea of an outcome without necessarily providing details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished. Flow performance is allegedly maintained due to an adjustment of the control mechanism based on the predicted data. However, it is unclear how the predicted well mass flow data corresponds to the adjustment of the mechanism and the maintenance of performance. In order for the predictive aspect of the claim to be integrated into a practical application, the claim must recite a particular solution to solving a problem- i.e. how is the well mass flow data used in the adjustment of the control mechanism to achieve the maintained performance? Stating a desired outcome based on predicted data that is not clearly linked to the physical control is not enough. Accordingly, the element amounts to applying the value from the mental process to result in an idea of a solution.
For the reasons stated in this response, and in conjunction with the update rejection provided in this action, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the combination of references would not have rendered obvious the claimed invention and that the Examiner has not adequately set forth reasonable rationale as to how the combination of references would yield the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). With this in mind, the Examiner has still considered Applicant’s points regarding the combination of prior art referenced with respect to the amended claimed matter.
Applicant argues that Liu does not fairly disclose the coupling of well mass flow data of the well system and modeled well mass flow data as a coupled input dataset. Applicant further argues that Liu is silent with respect to using a combination of data sources to train the neural network. Examiner agrees with this argument. Liu does disclose the coupling of measured data and a flow model to form the physics constrained machine learning model, however does not exactly disclose the coupling of the data sources as a singular input dataset. Liu also discloses only using measured data as training data. However, after further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection has been set forth to incorporate the teachings of Karra, wherein Karra explicitly points out the simultaneous integration of measured data and modeled data as training input for a physics constrained machine learning model. In considering the obviousness of the combination of references, Examiner has provided substantial rationale as to why the references would be combined and asserts that the combination is not merely a matter of hindsight to the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claimed matter is still sufficiently disclosed in the prior art.
Applicant further argues that claim limitation denoted (iv) in the remarks document dated 09/06/2025 is not sufficiently disclosed by the prior art of record and provides rebuttal argument as to what is and is not disclosed with regard to the particular limitation. After further consideration, Examiner agrees that the previously-relied upon art does not fairly suggest the entirety of the claimed matter because the references do not suggest or clearly indicate the output of a predictive model having higher temporal density than that data generated by a physics-based model. In light of the explanation and clarity provided by the applicant, Examiner has searched the prior art for the claimed matter, and a new grounds of rejection has been set forth with consideration to the reference Kashinath which discloses the generation of sparse data and the utilization of super resolution techniques to obtain data with higher temporal resolution. Accordingly, the claimed matter is still sufficiently disclosed by the prior art.
Applicant argues that the remaining references are directed to solving different problems and do not cure the deficiencies of any allegedly uncovered claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot based on the new grounds set forth in this action. Examiner contends that prior art references directed towards solving different problems may still be considered analogous art if the claimed matter is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even if the references are directed towards solving different problems. Nonetheless, in response, Examiner has provided more comprehensive rationale as to how the prior art references are reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention such that one having skill would reasonably arrive at the claimed invention.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons stated in this response and in conjunction with the rejection provided in this action.
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, 3-7, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 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 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
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).
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.
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).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 3-6 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
coupling, … the well mass flow data of the well system and the modeled well mass flow data as a coupled input data set; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating two data streams to combine the data stream for use as input. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can take two data streams and correlate the data to each other to generate a combined input dataset by writing the data values on a piece of paper. Accordingly, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating, … and the coupled input data set, predicted well mass flow data using the real-time well mass flow data; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating data to make a prediction of well mass flow data. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though this claim recites the use of a processor and a digital twin manager with a physics constrained machine learning model, these computing components are recited at a high level of generality such that the claim generally reads to using generic computing components to perform a mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind and those performed on a computer. As such, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
obtaining, by a processor of a digital twin manager and based on a predetermined monitoring criterion, well mass flow data of the well system;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
obtaining, by the processor of the digital twin manager, modeled well mass flow data for the well system using a physics-based model, wherein the physics-based model includes:- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
a valve module that corresponds to and emulates a control mechanism of the well system;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
an initial stage that models well mass flow from a model reservoir including a reservoir flow restriction module;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a second stage that models well mass flow from a constant volume midstream chamber, including a midstream flow restriction module, connected to the model reservoir;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a connection branch stage that models well mass flow from the constant volume midstream chamber connected to a model well head; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
and a terminal stage that models well mass flow from a constant volume chamber including a terminal flow restriction model in the model well head;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
training, by the processor of the digital twin manager, a physics constrained machine learning model using one or more machine learning algorithms based on the coupled input data set;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to perform an existing process- that is to predict a value.
obtaining, by the processor of the digital twin manager, real-time well mass flow data of the well system; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
and adjusting the control mechanism of the well system to maintain well mass flow performance of the well system based on the predicted well mass flow data, - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for reciting the equivalent of “apply it” with regard to the abstract idea in a generic manner. The element recites the idea of an outcome without necessarily providing details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished. Flow performance is allegedly maintained due to an adjustment of the control mechanism based on the predicted data. However, it is unclear how the predicted well mass flow data corresponds to the adjustment of the mechanism and the maintenance of performance and accordingly the element amounts to applying the value from the mental process to result in an idea of a solution.
wherein the predicted well mass flow data has a time resolution that is greater than a time resolution of the real-time well mass flow data from the well system and captures non- linear dynamics behavior of the well system, and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the judicial exception to this particular technological environment comprising time resolution details for data
wherein the well system comprises interconnected subsystems that include a compressor subsystem and a sales header subsystem, and the physics-based model includes a set of initial, second, connection, and terminal stages for the sales header subsystem., - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the judicial exception to this particular technological environment comprising these specific components of the well system
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generically reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, 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. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception. The following elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining, by a processor of a digital twin manager and based on a predetermined monitoring criterion, well mass flow data of the well system;
obtaining, by the processor of the digital twin manager, modeled well mass flow data for the well system using a physics-based model, wherein the physics-based model includes:
obtaining, by the processor of the digital twin manager, real-time well mass flow data of the well system;
The above limitations have been identified as insignificant extra solution activity. When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, these claim limitations entail receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized this computer functionality and well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner such as within this claim.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7:
Step 1: Claim 7 and its dependent claims 9-12 are directed to a well system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
couples the well mass flow data of the well system and the modeled well mass flow data as a coupled input data set; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating two data streams to combine the data stream for use as input. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can take two data streams and correlate the data to each other to generate a combined input dataset by writing the data values on a piece of paper. Accordingly, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generates, … and the coupled input data set, predicted well mass flow data using the real-time well mass flow data; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating data to make a prediction of well mass flow data. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though this claim recites the use of a processor and a digital twin manager with a physics constrained machine learning model, these computing components are recited at a high level of generality such that the claim generally reads to using generic computing components to perform a mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind and those performed on a computer. As such, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a well site; -This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for describing the field of use by which the judicial exception is applied
a physics-based modeling server that outputs modeled well mass flow data for the well site based on a physics-based model; and -This claim has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for describing the field of use by which the judicial exception is applied
a digital twin manager, coupled to the physics-based modeling server and the well site, that includes a processor, Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation invokes generic computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform an existing process
wherein the processor of the digital twin manager: Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation invokes generic computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform an existing process
obtains, based on a predetermined monitoring criterion, well mass flow data of the well site;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
obtains modeled well mass flow data for the well site using the physics-based model, wherein the physics-based model includes:- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
a valve module that corresponds to and emulates a control mechanism of the well site;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
an initial stage that models well mass flow from a model reservoir including a reservoir flow restriction module;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a second stage that models well mass flow from a constant volume midstream chamber, including a midstream flow restriction module, connected to the model reservoir;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a connection branch stage that models well mass flow from the constant volume midstream chamber connected to a model well head; and - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a terminal stage that models well mass flow from a constant volume chamber including a terminal flow restriction model in the model well head;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
trains a physics constrained machine learning model using one or more machine learning algorithms based on the coupled input data set;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to perform an existing process- that is to predict a value.
obtains real-time well mass flow data of the well site; and - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
wherein the control mechanism of the well site is adjusted to maintain well mass flow performance of the well site based on the predicted well mass flow data,- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for reciting the equivalent of “apply it” with regard to the abstract idea in a generic manner. The element recites the idea of an outcome without necessarily providing details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished. Flow performance is allegedly maintained due to an adjustment of the control mechanism based on the predicted data. However, it is unclear how the predicted well mass flow data corresponds to the adjustment of the mechanism and the maintenance of performance and accordingly the element amounts to applying the value from the mental process to result in an idea of a solution.
wherein the predicted well mass flow data has a time resolution that is greater than a time resolution of the real-time well mass flow data from the well site and captures non-linear dynamics behavior of the well site, and - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the judicial exception to this particular technological environment comprising time resolution details for data
wherein the well system comprises interconnected subsystems that include a compressor subsystem and a sales header subsystem, and the physics-based model includes a set of initial, second, connection, and terminal stages for the sales header subsystem.- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the judicial exception to this particular technological environment comprising these specific components of the well system
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generically reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, 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. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception. The following elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtains, based on a predetermined monitoring criterion, well mass flow data of the well site;
obtains modeled well mass flow data for the well site using the physics-based model, wherein the physics-based model includes:
obtains real-time well mass flow data of the well site; and
The above limitations have been identified as insignificant extra solution activity. When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, these claim limitations entail receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized this computer functionality and well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner such as within this claim.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13:
Step 1: Claim 13 and its dependent claim 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
coupling, …, the well mass flow data of the well system and the modeled well mass flow data as a coupled input data set; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating two data streams to combine the data stream for use as input. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can take two data streams and correlate the data to each other to generate a combined input dataset by writing the data values on a piece of paper. Accordingly, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating, … and the coupled input data set, predicted well mass flow data using the real-time well mass flow data ; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating data to make a prediction of well mass flow data. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though this claim recites the use of a processor and a digital twin manager with a physics constrained machine learning model, these computing components are recited at a high level of generality such that the claim generally reads to using generic computing components to perform a mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind and those performed on a computer. As such, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
obtaining, by the computer processor, well mass flow data of a well system based on a predetermined monitoring criterion;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
obtaining, by the computer processor, modeled well mass flow data for the well system using a physics-based model, wherein the physics-based model includes:- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
a valve module that corresponds to and emulates a control mechanism of the well system;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
an initial stage that models well mass flow from a model reservoir including a reservoir flow restriction module;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a second stage that models well mass flow from a constant volume midstream chamber, including a midstream flow restriction module, connected to the model reservoir;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a connection branch stage that models well mass flow from the constant volume midstream chamber connected to a model well head; and - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
a terminal stage that models well mass flow from a constant volume chamber including a terminal flow restriction model in the model well head;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment containing this component
training, by the computer processor, a physics constrained machine learning model using one or more machine learning algorithms based on the coupled input data set;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to perform an existing process- that is to predict a value.
obtaining, by the computer processor, real-time well mass flow data of the well system; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
adjusting the control mechanism of the well system to maintain well mass flow performance of the well system based on the predicted well mass flow data,- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for reciting the equivalent of “apply it” with regard to the abstract idea in a generic manner. The element recites the idea of an outcome without necessarily providing details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished. Flow performance is allegedly maintained due to an adjustment of the control mechanism based on the predicted data. However, it is unclear how the predicted well mass flow data corresponds to the adjustment of the mechanism and the maintenance of performance and accordingly the element amounts to applying the value from the mental process to result in an idea of a solution.
wherein the predicted well mass flow data has a time resolution that is greater than a time resolution of the real-time well mass flow data from the well system and captures non- linear dynamics behavior of the well system, and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the judicial exception to this particular technological environment comprising time resolution details for data
wherein the well system comprises interconnected subsystems that include a compressor subsystem and a sales header subsystem, and the physics-based model includes a set of initial, second, connection, and terminal stages for the sales header subsystem.- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the judicial exception to this particular technological environment comprising these specific components of the well system.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generically reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, 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. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception. The following elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining, by the computer processor, well mass flow data of a well system based on a predetermined monitoring criterion
obtaining, by the computer processor, modeled well mass flow data for the well system using a physics-based model, wherein the physics-based model includes:
obtaining, by the computer processor, real-time well mass flow data of the well system;
The above limitations have been identified as insignificant extra solution activity. When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, these claim limitations entail receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized this computer functionality and well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner such as within this claim.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 does not recite any additional recitations of judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the elements wherein the physics-based model emulates components of well mass flow behavior of the well system that are below a predetermined frequency, and and wherein the physics constrained machine learning model is trained to predict components of the well mass flow behavior of the well system that are above, below, and include the predetermined frequency. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for describing the technological environment by which the judicial exception is executed. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the physics constrained machine learning model is trained based on at least six months of the well mass flow data, and wherein the well mass flow data includes data for both normal operational conditions and shut- down conditions. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for describing the technological environment by which the judicial exception is executed. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein the physics constrained machine learning model is obtained using a machine learning algorithm selected from a group consisting of a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, a Gauss-Newton algorithm, a steepest descent algorithm, and an artificial neural network. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for describing the technological environment by which the judicial exception is executed. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein the physics constrained machine learning model uses a misfit function which includes a well mass flow prediction error, and which can reasonably be read to entail a mathematical formula that includes an error metric as the misfit function including a flow prediction error. The claim further recites wherein the well mass flow prediction error is selected from a group consisting of integral square error (ISE), mean error (ME), normalized ISE, and normalized ME. which are further recitations of mathematical formulas in their respective word forms. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 7 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Claim 9 appears to be substantially similar to claim 3 and is accordingly rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 7 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Claim 10 appears to be substantially similar to claim 4 and is accordingly rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 7 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Claim 11 appears to be substantially similar to claim 5 and is accordingly rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 7 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Claim 12 appears to be substantially similar to claim 6 and is accordingly rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial