DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination submitted on 26-NOV-2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Examiner Note
A new Examiner has been assigned to act on the application. Examiner has reviewed and given credit to the previous Examiner's actions consistent with MPEP § 704.01.
Response to Amendment - 35 USC § 112(d)
On pg. 4 of the Final Rejection dated 08/26/2025, a rejection was made under 35 USC § 112(d). Examiner was unable to find a response to the rejection. The rejection is maintained in its original form.
Response to Amendment - 35 USC § 101
On pgs. 6-8 of the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks dated 11/26/2025 (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On pg. 6 of the Remarks, Applicant recites the following limitations:
detecting that at least one of the one or more physical sensors is malfunctioning based on comparing the data with one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models; and
physically servicing at least one of the one or more physical sensors based on the detected malfunctioning.
Continuing on pg. 7 of the Remarks, the Applicant references paragraphs [0027] and [0037] from the specification. The emphasized portion from paragraph [0027] reads as “determine/forecast need for maintenance of physical sensors”. Examiner notes, this does not state to perform the maintenance, but to determine or forecast need for maintenance. A person of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably forecast the need for maintenance by observing results from a sensor and evaluating the results to be out of tolerance. Paragraph [0037] has two emphasized portions. The first portion emphasized states “malfunctioning of corresponding physical sensors”. Similar to the section cited in paragraph [0027], a person of ordinary skill in the art could observe the output of the sensor and evaluate if the sensor readings are malfunctioning and if the sensor seems incorrect which can be informed by judgment. The second emphasized portion “need for updating/servicing the corresponding sensor(s)” does not recite performing the updating or servicing, but is a result of a report or alarm. Applicant then states “Updating or servicing a malfunctioning sensor is a practical application”. Examiner does not find paragraphs [0027] or [0037] to be “updating or servicing a malfunctioning sensor”, but are generating a forecast or alarm to the potential need for an update.
Continuing on pg. 7 and pg. 8, Applicant argues MPEP § 2106.05(f) is incorrect for evaluating the limitations as cited above. The updated rejection below cites MPEP § 2106.05(g) and post solution activity for the analysis of the last limitation in claim 1. MPEP § 2106.05(f) is only applied to the system and CRM in claims 9 and 17 in the updated rejection.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. Examiner does note the rejection has been changed from the previous final rejection.
Response to Amendment - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, a new Examiner has been assigned to the case. All previous amendments and office actions have been reviewed. The claims submitted 06/18/2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/26/2025 appears to have introduced a rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) – written description which was not previously raised.
In claims 1, 9, and 17, the following amendment was introduced 06/18/2025 and is not supported by the specification:
servicing at least one of the one or more physical sensors based on the detected malfunctioning.
The current amendment submitted 11/26/2025 has further amended the above limitation to include the word “physically” and is further not supported by the specification.
physically servicing at least one of the one or more physical sensors based on the detected malfunctioning.
The support for the amendment appears to come from paragraph [0037] of the specification as published and corresponding Fig. 4.
[0037] “Therefore, at S408, device 200 may generate a report/generate an alarm indicative of malfunctioning or need for updating/servicing the corresponding sensor(s) 101”.
The specification recites generating a report or alarm indicative of malfunctioning or need for updating/servicing. The specification does not say to perform the servicing. This is further confirmed in Fig. 4 where the element S408 (Generate Maintenance Report/Alarm) loops back to S400 (Receive Data from Sensors). The specification provides no detail of the type of sensor to be serviced or how service would be performed. The specification support generating the report or alarm that service is needed. The term “physically servicing” is also not supported by the specification. It is unclear if the claim language is implying the sensor would be replaced or repaired in some way. No examples are provided because the invention does not service the sensor, but generate a report or alarm that service is needed.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 all inherit the same deficiency as the independent they depend from and are rejected for the same reasons as above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 and analogous Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The aforementioned claims pertain to the detection and handling of faulty behavior in the sensors, while the claims that they depend on contain limitations pertaining to the sensors malfunctioning. A sensor malfunctioning is considered the same or a subset of the sensor exhibiting faulty behavior. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
determining at least one formation property of the wellbore using one or more machine learning models receiving the data as input;
The “formation property” is determined through an observation of the input and a judgement on the type of “formation property” based on the observed input.
generating reservoir simulation models using the at least one formation property;
A “simulation model” could simply be a single temperature, the “at least one formation property” for the entirety of the well. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to visualize a well of a constant temperature when evaluating the observed “formation property”.
detecting that at least one of the one or more physical sensors is malfunctioning based on comparing the data with one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models; and
The data from the “one or more physical sensors” is observed and compared to the “predictive model”. This could be the predicted temperature of the well is temperature A and the “physical sensor” is reading temperature B. A person of ordinary skill in the art could observe both data points and perform an evaluation if the data points are the same.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following step is merely gathering the data on elements to be used in the calculation:
receiving data from one or more physical sensors within a wellbore;
Post solution activity:
physically servicing at least one of the one or more physical sensors based on the detected malfunctioning.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
wherein the data includes one or more of a formation temperature, pressure or rate of fluid transfer from a formation to the wellbore
The “data” can be observed as “temperature, pressure or rate of fluid transfer”.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following step is merely gathering the data on elements to be used in the calculation:
as measured by the one or more physical sensors.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
No additional elements are presented under Step 2A Prong 1 in claim 3. However, claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and inherits the abstract idea of the independent claim.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following step is merely gathering the data on elements to be used in the calculation:
wherein the one or more physical sensors are installed inside the wellbore.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 4 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
detecting a faulty behavior of any one of the one or more physical sensors based on comparing the data with one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models.
The “detecting a faulty behavior” is completed by “comparing the data” between “sensors” and the “predictive model”. An evaluation is performed when “comparing the data”. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the data from the sensor and observe the data from the model to make an evaluation if the data is the same or different, such as when comparing temperature data from the sensor and the model.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
Claim 4 does not contain additional elements, however, claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and inherits the additional elements of claim 1.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
retraining the one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models upon detecting the faulty behavior.
The “retraining” is performing an update or adjustment to the “predictive model” based on “faulty behavior”. This can be interpreted as observing the sensor data, such as temperature data, and realizing the temperature data is not incorrect from the sensor. The response would be update the “predictive model” to reflect the correct data. This can reasonably be done in the mind by observing the data and adjusting the model based on judgement.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
Claim 5 does not contain additional elements, however, claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and inherits the additional elements of claim 4 (which depends from claim 1).
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 6 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
Claim 6 does not contain additional elements, however, claim 6 is dependent on claim 4 and inherits the additional elements of claim 4 (which depends from claim 1).
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Post solution activity:
communicating the faulty behavior to a control center associated with the wellbore.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
“Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 7 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
wherein the at least one formation property is relative permeability within a zone of interest inside the wellbore.
The “formation property” is evaluated based on the input. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to observe the input from the sensors and be able to evaluate the “relative permeability” based on judgement from previous inputs.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
Claim 7 does not contain additional elements, however, claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and inherits the additional elements of claim 1.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
wherein the at least one formation property is effective permeability within a zone of interest inside the wellbore.
The “formation property” is evaluated based on the input. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to observe the input from the sensors and be able to evaluate the “effective permeability” based on judgement from previous inputs.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
Claim 8 does not contain additional elements, however, claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and inherits the additional elements of claim 1.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP § 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
“Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is insignificant application/post solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claims 9-16 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-8, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional components of “A device comprising one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to:” are interpreted as a general purpose computer and mere instructions to apply. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claims 17 and 19-20 are medium claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1 and 3-4, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-4 and 8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional components of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” are interpreted as a general purpose computer and mere instructions to apply. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 18 is a medium claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 2 and 8, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-4 and 8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Li et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0110485 A1 (hereinafter ‘Li’) in view of
Wen et al., “An Integrated Platform for IIoT in E&P: Closing the Gap between Data Science and Operations” [September 24 2018] (hereinafter ‘Wen’).
Regarding Claim 1: A method comprising:
Li teaches receiving data from one or more physical sensors within a wellbore; ([0007] Li “…The information source for these processing tasks consists of various wellbore sensor measurements such as downhole pressures, flow rates and temperatures. Recent advances in permanent monitoring have enabled the collection of high frequency well data including surface and downhole pressures, temperatures, and rates. Taking these measurements as input, signal processing/machine learning algorithms may be useful in estimating the values or extracting the trends of parameters critical to reservoir performance….”)
Li teaches determining at least one formation property of the wellbore using one or more machine learning models receiving the data as input; ([0042] Li “…As used herein, the term "model-based dynamic model learning algorithm" refers to a machine learning algorithms based on certain parametric dynamic models, instead of nonparametric or simple regression models. Given model structure, the algorithms learn the model parameters by mapping the data onto the model, so that certain error metrics are minimized…” [0058] Li “…The second component comprises a set of model based dynamic learning algorithms (as shown in FIG. 4) that sequentially analyze the measured reservoir pressure, rate and temperature data, and identify the model parameter values and trends. The model-based algorithms calculate a set of parameters including pressure rate responses/transfer functions for local as well as interwell dynamics. Additionally, the parameters may be divided into groups associated with testing and non-testing wells, respectively. The model-based algorithms adaptively adjust the learning pace for each group of wells…”)
Li teaches generating reservoir simulation models using the at least one formation property; ([0059] Li “…The third component comprises a set of interpretation algorithms that map obtained response/transfer functions as well as any other estimated parameters into reservoir characteristic parameters such as skin factors, permeability, compressibility, interwell connectivity, boundaries, fault conditions and the like. The interpretation algorithms may be configured to extract trends of these parameters over time. The trend data can be used for assisted reservoir simulation history matching. These estimates and trends may then be provided as input data to a reservoir performance prediction process, production optimization or even further well testing planning. An interpretation model may combine external data such as the log/core measurements, seismic data and/or interpreted stratigraphic information, if available. In addition to these core components, a set of data pre-processing modules for data de-noising, rapid scoping and well event detection/ data segmentation are contemplated. These processes may be performed before or in parallel with processes performed by the first and second components discussed herein…”)
Li does not appear to explicitly disclose
detecting that at least one of the one or more physical sensors is malfunctioning based on comparing the data with one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models; and
physically servicing at least one of the one or more physical sensors based on the detected malfunctioning.
However, Wen teaches detecting that at least one of the one or more physical sensors is malfunctioning based on comparing the data with one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models; and (Pg. 8 5th-6th paragraph Wen “…Machine learning can be used to provide earlier detection of failures and assist engineers in the diagnostic process. An unsupervised approach was implemented to learn the behavior of export compressors over multiple years. The algorithm was able to differentiate between operating modes by creating clusters of sensor values over time. We then evaluated the evolution of each time series point from the cluster centroid, which represented the placement of most data, and was thus considered to represent "normal" behaviors. To identify and act on anomalies, an alert was raised whenever a point in time exceeded the normal behavior boundary. The result was a smarter virtual sensor based on the distance to the cluster centroid. Whenever the virtual sensor exceeded a set threshold, it would alert the equipment specialist, who could then visualize the individual sensors causing this anomalous behavior and other relevant information pertaining to these sensors in an easily accessible web application…”)
Wen teaches physically servicing at least one of the one or more physical sensors based on the detected malfunctioning. (Pg. 8 4th paragraph Wen “…This creates unique challenges for operators to monitor their condition and performance, and more importantly, to react when failure or other anomaly events occur. It often takes days or even weeks to have maintenance crews onsite to perform repair or replacement…”)
Li and Wen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, reservoir production and simulation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determining at least one formation property of the wellbore using one or more machine learning models receiving the data as input as disclosed by Li by detecting that at least one of the one or more physical sensors is malfunctioning based on comparing the data with one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models and physically servicing at least one of the one or more physical sensors based on the detected malfunctioning as disclosed by Wen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better integrate all the operational teams and minimize overhead as discussed on pg. 2 3rd paragraph by Wen “…In this paper, we present the architecture of an IIoT platform that minimizes the overhead and accelerates value creation in the context of the digital oilfield. The proposed IIoT platform is an integrated portal for all members working in the same ecosystem, including data scientists, data engineers, operations engineers, business analysts, and IT administrators. The design of the architecture focuses on minimizing the gap between in-house modeling teams and operational teams in an asset heavy industry context…”
Regarding Claim 2: Li and Wen teach The method of claim 1,
Li teaches wherein the data includes one or more of a formation temperature, pressure or rate of fluid transfer from a formation to the wellbore as measured by the one or more physical sensors. ([0007] Li “…The information source for these processing tasks consists of various wellbore sensor measurements such as downhole pressures, flow rates and temperatures. Recent advances in permanent monitoring have enabled the collection of high frequency well data including surface and downhole pressures, temperatures, and rates. Taking these measurements as input, signal processing/machine learning algorithms may be useful in estimating the values or extracting the trends of parameters critical to reservoir performance….”)
Regarding Claim 3: Li and Wen teach The method of claim 1,
Li teaches wherein the one or more physical sensors are installed inside the wellbore. ([0007] Li “…The information source for these processing tasks consists of various wellbore sensor measurements such as downhole pressures, flow rates and temperatures. Recent advances in permanent monitoring have enabled the collection of high frequency well data including surface and downhole pressures, temperatures, and rates.)
Regarding Claim 4: Li and Wen teach The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Wen teaches detecting a faulty behavior of any one of the one or more physical sensors based on comparing the data with one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models. (Pg. 8 5th-6th paragraph Wen “…Machine learning can be used to provide earlier detection of failures and assist engineers in the diagnostic process. An unsupervised approach was implemented to learn the behavior of export compressors over multiple years. The algorithm was able to differentiate between operating modes by creating clusters of sensor values over time. We then evaluated the evolution of each time series point from the cluster centroid, which represented the placement of most data, and was thus considered to represent "normal" behaviors. To identify and act on anomalies, an alert was raised whenever a point in time exceeded the normal behavior boundary. The result was a smarter virtual sensor based on the distance to the cluster centroid. Whenever the virtual sensor exceeded a set threshold, it would alert the equipment specialist, who could then visualize the individual sensors causing this anomalous behavior and other relevant information pertaining to these sensors in an easily accessible web application…”)
Regarding Claim 5: Li and Wen teach The method of claim 4, further comprising:
Wen teaches retraining the one or more corresponding machine learning based predictive models upon detecting the faulty behavior. (Pg. 1 last paragraph – pg. 2 1st paragraph Wen “…Also, real-world operational conditions change over time. Models trained against historical data may need further tuning or even major revision when operational conditions change. Those two factors both require data-driven analytics and models to pass through iterations of "data collection, modeling, deployment, and feedback" before the work can be robustly utilized in real-time operation…”)
Regarding Claim 6: Li and Wen teach The method of claim 4, further comprising:
Wen teaches communicating the faulty behavior to a control center associated with the wellbore. (Pg. 8 last paragraph “…As a result, the anomaly detection model was deployed onto a cloud-based IIoT platform, which was able to raise alerts two weeks in advance of the DGS failure and was also able to identify the most anomalous sensors of the compressor system. The interface to operators was created using a customized template and deployed to the model hub using the deployment software…”)
Regarding Claim 8: Li and Wen teach The method of claim 1,
Li teaches wherein the at least one formation property is effective permeability within a zone of interest inside the wellbore. ([0081] Li “…The task of interpretation is to take these functions as input and to compute the values and trends of the reservoir physical parameters, including the effective permeability between wells and the local properties such as the skin factor, the permeability, the compressibility, the viscosity, and the like…”)
Claims 9-14 and 16 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-6 and 8, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claims 1-6 and 8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are medium claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1 and 3-4, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claims 1-4 and 8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claim 18 is a medium claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 2 and 8, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claims 1-4 and 8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Li et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0110485 A1 (hereinafter ‘Li’) in view of
Wen et al., “An Integrated Platform for IIoT in E&P: Closing the Gap between Data Science and Operations” [September 24 2018] (hereinafter ‘Wen’) further in view of
HINKLEY et al., International Publication WO 2017/039680 A1 (hereinafter ‘HINKLEY’).
Regarding Claim 7: Li and Wen teach The method of claim 1,
Li and Wen do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the at least one formation property is relative permeability within a zone of interest inside the wellbore.
However, HINKLEY teaches wherein the at least one formation property is relative permeability within a zone of interest inside the wellbore. ([0028] HINKLEY “…At step 220, the processor 110 can determine one or more parameters from the reservoir simulation model. The parameters can include one or more of a number of components, a number of gridblocks, a number of processors or nodes, a simulation start time, a simulation end time, a timespan of a simulation of the reservoir simulation model, a hardware factor, a surface network complexity, a displacement type ( e.g., waterflood, gasflood, near miscible, etc.), a well type (e.g., a water-and-gas well, a multilateral well, a smart well, a well with downhole devices, etc.), a level of well control, a pressure-volume- temperature type (e.g., black oil, gas-water, water-oil, American Petroleum Institute, equation of state, etc.), a relative permeability type (e.g., hysteresis, interfacial tension, near critical, etc.), a porosity type (e.g., single porosity, dual porosity, etc.), a geomechanical type ( e.g., simple compressibility, compaction tables, coupled geomechanical model, etc.), a thermal type (e.g., single temperature, non-steam flash, full steam/water flash, etc.), a scaling factor, and a miscellaneous property of the reservoir simulation model. Data associated with the one or more determined parameters can be stored in a local or remote storage medium…”)
Li, Wen, and HINKLEY are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, reservoir production and simulation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determining at least one formation property of the wellbore using one or more machine learning models receiving the data as input as disclosed by Li and Wen by wherein the at least one formation property is relative permeability within a zone of interest inside the wellbore as disclosed by HINKLEY.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reservoir simulation as discussed in [0016] of HINKLEY “…Next, the processor can determine one or more parameters from the reservoir simulation model. The processor can then calculate an estimated time to complete the simulation of the reservoir simulation model based on one or more of the parameters. If a change in one or more of the parameters is detected, the processor can update the estimated time to complete the simulation of the reservoir simulation model based on the change. This can improve the processing of the system and the efficiency of the simulation. The processor can also use one or more of the parameters to calculate a simulation model complexity score…”
Claim 15 is a system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 7, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claim 7, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights