DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 14 & 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection for claims 5, 6 and 19, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is WITHDRAWN.
Rejection for claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13, 14, 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayakumar et al., in view of Collins, in view of Arora, further in view of Dusterhoft is WITHDRAWN in view of amendment.
Rejection for claims 2, 9, 11, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayakumar in view of Collins, in view of Arora, in view of Dusterhoft, and further in view of Jones is WITHDRAWN in view of amendment in the parent claim.
Rejection for claims 3, 12 and 16, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayakumar in view of Collins, in view of Arora, in view of Dusterhoft, and further in view of Kadeethum is WITHDRAWN in view of amendment in the parent claim.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.11-12:
PNG
media_image1.png
420
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) The steps of identifying, connecting and operating as argued above are not rejected as mathematical concepts or mental steps in the rejection below. These steps are addressed in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.12:
PNG
media_image2.png
402
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Response 2) The computation of EUR for the new well is mathematical concept/ mental step as mapped. The decision to include the well based on pre-production new well into reservoir appears to mental step (or simply an exercise of expert determining that new well EUR is above some arbitrary threshold). The argued limitations (as underlined above) is purely an idea of solution as recited in MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The solution in the exemplary claim1, to operate well by adjusting, based on the first predicted EUR of the current well, fracturing of the current well using a fracture fluid type and by injecting a fracture fluid volume to initiate delivery of fluids from the target reservoir to the production facility , does not provide any steps how the adjusting is performed to based on EUR or how the determination is made how much fluid volume is injected based on predicted EUR. This is simply field of use of the computed EUR (similar to the use of alarm in In re Flook).
Examiner respectfully maintain the updated grounds in view arguments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Regarding Claim 1, 8 and 14
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 8-13 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and Claims 14-20 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial exception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for comprising:
identifying historical production data related to a plurality of previously-drilled wells comprising multi-fracture horizontal wells of a shale reservoir within similar geological formations as a target reservoir comprising new wells unconnected to a production facility, the new wells having an initial production data being limited to an initial time interval of gas flowback that is shorter than a month;
determining, based on the historical production data and the initial production data, a correlation between a productivity index and an estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) in the shale reservoir of the new wells relative to the previously-drilled wells within similar geological formations;
calculating, based on the gas flowback, a first productivity index for a current well of the new wells in the target reservoir before connecting the current well to a production facility;
determining, based on the first productivity index of the current well, and the correlation between productivity index and the EUR, a first predicted EUR of the current well;
connecting, based on the first predicted EUR, the current well of the new wells to the production facility to deliver fluids from the target reservoir to the production facility; and
operating the current well in the target reservoir, by adjusting, based on the first predicted EUR of the current well, fracturing of the current well using a fracture fluid type and
by injecting a fracture fluid volume to initiate delivery of fluids from the target reservoir to the production facility.
See step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B below.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The step of determining correlation is considered as mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Determination whether data is from similar geological formation is mental step of forming a judgement based on the observation (correlation between the historical production data and the initial production data) for the new wells. Determining EUR for new well is based on correlation of productivity is also considered mental step/mathematical concept.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The step of calculating productivity index1 is considered as mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) & (A) for the new well.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The step of determining first EUR based on correlation and productivity index is considered as mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). This may also be considered as mental step to form an opinion/judgement/evaluation to determine first EUR based on observed data (correlation and productivity index), and can be done with pencil and paper (e.g. on plotted graph).
See step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B below.
See step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B below.
See step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B below.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (computer implemented method for claim 1, A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system for claim 8 and A system comprising: one or more processors for claim 14). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for comprising:
identifying historical production data related to a plurality of previously-drilled wells comprising multi-fracture horizontal wells of a shale reservoir within similar geological formations as a target reservoir comprising new wells unconnected to a production facility, the new wells having an initial production data being limited to an initial time interval of gas flowback that is shorter than a month;
determining, based on the historical production data and the initial production data, a correlation between a productivity index and an estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) in the shale reservoir of the new wells relative to the previously-drilled wells within similar geological formations;
calculating, based on the gas flowback, a first productivity index for a current well of the new wells in the target reservoir before connecting the current well to a production facility;
determining, based on the first productivity index of the current well, and the correlation between productivity index and the EUR, a first predicted EUR of the current well;
connecting, based on the first predicted EUR, the current well of the new wells to the production facility to deliver fluids from the target reservoir to the production facility; and
operating the current well in the target reservoir, by adjusting, based on the first predicted EUR of the current well, fracturing of the current well using a fracture fluid type and
by injecting a fracture fluid volume to initiate delivery of fluids from the target reservoir to the production facility.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case the this is mere data gathering step to gather historical data from new wells and the other wells in the same formation.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
As per MPEP 2106.05(h), this limitation amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (connecting new well to reservoir) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because how the first EUR is used to improve the field of use is not claimed. EUR is not associated with a threshold based on which the new well would be connected to production facility. Even so if claimed, EUR would be akin to alarm limit in In re Flook. Further As per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), connecting based on is considered an idea of solution, where it is unclear how the connecting is based on EUR or what value of EUR will lead to the solution (of connecting the current well to reservoir).
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Specifically, how the first EUR (which is the desired result/solution) is used to operate the well is not tied to how the fracturing (e.g. fracturing fluid or volume) is adjusted to achieve the result.
In essence the how the operating of well is improved based on injection of fracture fluid volume is not associated with EUR for the new well. e.g. What happens when EUR is lower than some threshold (none claimed), what measures are taken to determine what volume of fracture fluid should be injected such that it improves on hydrocarbon/gas production?.
In addition, the claim(s) recites the additional computer elements of a processor for the system claim, at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic processor performing generic functions of computing and executing information such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further as described above in the initial mapping in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer/processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processing component. As per MPEP 2106.05(a) these are not improvement in functioning of the computer and do not provide a improvement in the operating of the current well. Further, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further as described above in the initial mapping in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Using the first EUR (a number indicating a solution/goal) for operating the current well is not does not provide what needs to changed/improved in fracturing fluid and volume operations and therefore at best provide an idea of solution (as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea(See MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the steps may lead to better EUR behavior, but it does not indicate how the EUR in actual well is improved or the performance of the reservoir is improved based on the algorithm. See Arora2 prior art [0066] as example of how the EUR may be achieved by manually adjusting by expert user.
The claims 1 , 8 & 14 are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the first productivity index is an instantaneous productivity index value during first 3 weeks of flowback time” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. This step also be considered as mathematical concept (as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) for computing a productivity index. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 9, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
PNG
media_image3.png
60
369
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 16, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the first productivity index is calculated using:
where J is the first productivity index in stock tank barrel/day/pound per square inch (STB/D/PSI), Q is a surface flowrate at standard conditions in STB/D, Pe is an external boundary radius pressure in PSI, and Pwf is a well sand-face mid-perf pressure in PSI” , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 12, and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 17, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the historical production data comprises: historical productivity index data of the plurality of previously-drilled wells” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 13 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, they recite additional element recitations of “adjusting the spacing between the current well and other previously drilled well of the target reservoir based on the first predicted EUR” which are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (See MPEP § 2106.05(f) – see the claim does not disclose how the first predicted EUR changes the spacing between the wells) and field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h) the first EUR is a number applied to well spacing without details of their correlation in the field of oil well placement), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein determining the (EUR) comprises: generating, using the historical production data, a numerical model for history matching and forecasting” and respectively recite “plotting historical productivity index data versus the first predicted EUR as plotted data points” and “plotting historical productivity index data, as plotted data points, versus the estimated EUR”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A.Further regarding claims 6 and 19, they also recite additional element recitations of “generating a best-fit linear line through the plotted data points”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein determining the EUR comprises: performing a probabilistic analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 10, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the correlation is a linear correlation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 11, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the historical production data comprises less than five weeks of gas flowback data of the current well” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Relevant Prior Art of Record
US PGPUB No. US 20100089573 A1 by Vittoratos; Euthimios et al. discloses the limitation identifying … new wells unconnected to a production facility, the new wells having an initial production data (Vittoratos: [0089] "... [0089] The increase in minimum EUR trend is observed with pre production of 1.5-3.0% of the oil in place prior to the initiation of the waterflood in the Alaska-like (Canadian) Waterfloods range... The "outside" peripheral waterfloods show the sweet spot in EUR with 1.5-2.5% of the oil in place produced prior to initiation of the waterflood, although the fewer number of points for this case reduces the certainty of pre-production of 2% of OIP before waterflooding commences--see FIG. 9. ", [0099] , [0108] "... [0108] Pre-production up to 8% of OIP is not detrimental to EUR..."). Vittoratos also teaches limitation of determining, based on the first productivity index of the current well, and the correlation between productivity index and the EUR, a first predicted EUR of the current well (Vittoratos: [0073] [0076]).
Vittoratos does not teach new well is unconnected to the target reservoir. Infact the inside/outside well implies the well is new well, but already reliant (connected) on the other wells in the reservoir (contrary to the claim).
US 20260004210 A1 by Robbins; David James et al. (not prior art) teaches computing pre-production EUR (Robbins: [0061] "...The mean, pre-production resource potential from a hydrocarbon producing field of interest may be forecasted using a machine learning that is trained to forecast estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). EUR can be derived from decline curve analysis (DCA). The actual produced hydrocarbon and fluid history of basin can then be subtracted from the mean EUR productions and the difference can be mathematically converted to an initial storage volume capacity...."). Although Robbins is relevant (not prior art), it also does not teach new well is unconnected to the target reservoir.
CN 107842359 by SHENG, Xiu-jie et al. teaches EUR for a single well:
PNG
media_image4.png
588
550
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB No. US 20200124753 A1 by Halsey; Thomas C. et al. teaches comparing (Halsey : [0087] "... [0087] In one example, the method and system may involve a modeling a hydrocarbon operation. A first data set may include pre-production data, which is used to create the ensemble of reservoir models. Then, a second data set may include production history data for time less than the performance of the hydrocarbon operation. Then, the metric may be the total production for the time period after the hydrocarbon operation being performed compared to that without the hydrocarbon operation having been performed....") intrinsic and extrinsic variability of a well (Halsey: [0035]-[0036]) which include computation of EUR. This also includes decision making (Halsey: [0046], Fig.3I.) . Halsey does not appear to teach new well is unconnected to the target reservoir and connected based on decision.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN PITARO can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Thursday, June 18, 2026
1 Specification [0007] productivity index is a mathematical formula.
2 US PGPUB No. 2010297235
Prosecution Insights