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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
This action is non-final, and is in response to the amendments filed on 12/08/2025.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/08/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5,6, 8-13, 15-21 are pending and have been considered.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more. The added limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and merely states a desired result without specifying any mechanism for control, thus amounting to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea in a generic technological environment and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. It does not integrate into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed on 12/08/2025 have been considered.
Claims 1, 15, 17 have been amended.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
The claims remain directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more. The amendments in independent claims have not made the claims eligible.
Claim 1, representative for claims 15, 17, was amended to include the limitation “controlling, based on results of the numerically simulating, at least one operational parameter of the at least one well in the petroleum reservoir.”
This additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and merely states a desired result without specifying any mechanism for achieving control, what parameters are controlled, how is the control performed, what operation is affected or any particular control logic, schematic, or physical process implementation.
Therefore, the limitation amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea in a generic technological environment and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that amount to more than the abstract idea. The claimed “controlling” step is purely functional and does not reflect an improvement.
The claims may be amended to recite specific physical operations. In particular Examiner considers that support for such limitations is found for example at page 20, from line 24 to page 21 line 24, such as “One or more iterations of the method may be integrated in the hydrocarbon production process. The process may comprise performing one or more physical actions on the geological environment based on a result of the one or more iterations of the method. The one or more physical actions may comprise extracting hydrocarbon and/or injecting fluid in the subsoil to enhance extraction, fracking, performing (e.g. seismic, logs) measurements, and/or drilling and/or operating one
or more (e.g. production and/or injections) wells” and so on.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-14, 21 are directed to a method, claims 15-16 and 18 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and claims 17, 19-20 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 17) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 17) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold in the following:
[A] providing a geomodel configured for hydrocarbon flow simulation in a petroleum reservoir having one or more wells, the geomodel representing horizons and geological units of the reservoir, the horizons being orthogonal to a same direction;
[B] providing, for each well: a trajectory representing a path of the well in the reservoir, data distributed along the trajectory and including: horizon markers, one or more fault markers, and a geological unit log; and a list of points and segments of the trajectory, each segment linking two consecutive points, each point including: (i) for each horizon marker a respective horizon marker point and (ii) for each fault marker a respective fault marker point; wherein the geological unit log associates each point to a respective geological unit;
[BC] computing a positive-definite matrix representing: the trajectory as a graph and a discontinuity at each fault marker point:
[C] deforming the trajectory of at least one well based on the geomodel,
the deforming being constrained by consistency of the horizon markers and of the geological unit log with the geomodel, a discontinuity being allowed at each fault marker, the deforming comprising: (i) applying a displacement, limited to the direction orthogonal to the horizons, to positions of the trajectory and (ii)minimizing an energy that penalizes non-rigidness of deforming, the energy being expressed as a function of the positive-definite matrix and of a vector representing application of the displacement to the points;
[D] numerically simulating a hydrocarbon flow in the petroleum reservoir using the provided geomodel and the trajectory of the at least one well with the deformed trajectory; and
[E] controlling, based on results of the numerically simulating, at least one operational parameter of the at least one well in the petroleum reservoir.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 15, 17) recites: use a mathematical representation for trajectory and discontinuities [BC], deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel [C], which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement regarding hoe to modify a trajectory and how to ensure consistency. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim also recites mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I)
Accordingly, claim 1 (which is representative of claims 15, 17 ) recites an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A.2. it is determined that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements [A], [B], when considered individually, fail to amount to more than the judicial exception itself. Specifically:
- Elements [A], [B] reciting providing a geomodel, and providing a trajectory and data along trajectory constitutes actions of collection information, data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
Elements [D] and [E] are interpreted as ‘apply it’.
This additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and merely states a desired result without specifying any mechanism for achieving control, what parameters are controlled, how is the control performed, what operation is affected or any particular control logic, schematic, or physical process implementation.
Therefore, the limitation amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea in a generic technological environment and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that amount to more than the abstract idea. The claimed “controlling” step is purely functional and does not reflect an improvement.
The claims may be amended to recite specific physical operations. In particular Examiner considers that support for such limitations is found for example at page 20, from line 24 to page 21 line 24, such as “One or more iterations of the method may be integrated in the hydrocarbon production process. The process may comprise performing one or more physical actions on the geological environment based on a result of the one or more iterations of the method. The one or more physical actions may comprise extracting hydrocarbon and/or injecting fluid in the subsoil to enhance extraction, fracking, performing (e.g. seismic, logs) measurements, and/or drilling and/or operating one
or more (e.g. production and/or injections) wells” and so on.
Taken individually or in combination, the additional elements [A], [B], [D], [E] do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative also of claim 15, 17) does not contribute an inventive concept. That is, the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07).
The additional elements of data gathering in [A], [B] when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception, while [D], in broadest reasonable interpretation, as the numerical simulation of hydrocarbon reservoirs using geo models and well trajectories [D], [E] are ‘apply it’ and also WURC.
Re [D] see in this respect see for example, Fujita et al, A comprehensive reservoir simulator for unconventional reservoirs that is based on the fast matching method and diffusive time of flight , 2016 , “Modeling of fluid flow in unconventional reservoirs requires accurate characterization of complex flow mechanisms because of the interactions between reservoir rock, microfractures, and hydraulic fractures.“, also Agada et al Numerical simulation of fluid-flow processes in a 3D high-resolution carbonate reservoir analogue, Petroleum Geoscience Online First, 2014, “Flow simulations are performed for numerical well testing and secondary oil recovery. Numerical well testing enables synthetic but systematic pressure responses to be generated for different geological features observed in the outcrops”).
Re [E] see in this respect see for example, MONITORING AND DIAGNOSTICS OF FLOODED RESERVOIRS DATA USING OPERATIONAL DATA RU 2598261 C1, 2016-09-20 “ To provide a more complete picture of the state of the reservoir, simulations are performed as part of the control of the well operation parameters”; An Oil Extractor Load Simulation Test Device, CN 109283002 A, 2019-01-29 “pumping the oil condition of simulation pumping unit, it is necessary to the control system by the operating platform input according to the normal working parameter of the simulated well.”
Thus, the additional elements do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
When considered as a whole the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. There is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel” could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 15 and 17, are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Claim 2 (depending on claim 1) representative for claim 16 (depending on claim 15) and claim 19 (depending on claim 17) further recites:
[A] wherein the method rewards rigidness of the deforming.
The limitation is interpreted as a further limitation of the deforming step, more specifically rewarding maintaining the shape of the trajectory with minimal changes in relative position of points in the trajectory.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, rewarding rigidness of deforming (the trajectory) ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 2, 16, 19 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, which is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea. Similarly, claim 18 depends on claim 15 and claim 20 depends on claim 17, which are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea. Claims 3, 18, 20 recites substantially similar limitations.
Claim 3, representative for claim 18 and claim 20, further recites:
[A] wherein the direction is a vertical direction.
The additional elements [A] do not perform any claimed method steps, merely describing the structure, nature/form of other claim elements, specifically the horizons provided in the geomodel, thus the geometrical relationship described is merely interpreted as no more than mere instructions to linking the judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and as such, cannot change the nature of the key identified abstract idea (“deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07).
Both when considered individually or in combination, the additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel “. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, claim elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 3, 18, 20 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 5 depending on claim 1, which is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea, further recites:
[A] wherein the minimizing the energy comprises applying a global optimization algorithm.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, minimizing energy applying a global optimization algorithm recites a mathematical concept. This also can be considered a mental process as nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually, by a human. Potential use of a general computer does not alter the nature of the process. Therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea. The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Claims 6 depending on claim 4, which is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea, further recites:
[A] the minimizing the energy is performed under equality constraints representing match between each horizon marker point and a position of the geomodel consistent with the horizon marker of each horizon marker point, and under inequality constraints representing belonging of each point to a zone of the geomodel consistent with the respective geological unit of the point.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, minimizing energy under constraints recites a mathematical concept. This also can be considered a mental process for minimization as well as for determining a match and considering the inequality constraints - as nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually, by a human. Potential use of a general computer does not alter the nature of the process. Claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 12, depending on claim 1, which is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea, further recites:
[A] wherein the at least one well comprises several wells defined by a user,
[B] the deforming being performed fully automatically on each of the several wells.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, deforming on each of the several wells, even fully automatically, can be performed in the mind or pen and paper, thus further recites a mental process. The use of a general computer does not alter the nature of the process (MPEP 2106.05 (f) Merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer or performing it automatically without a technological improvement is not enough. Claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The additional elements [A] do not perform any claimed method steps, merely describing the structure, nature/form of other claim elements, specifically the phrase “at least one well” and is interpreted as no more than mere instructions to linking the judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and as such, cannot change the nature of the key identified abstract idea (“deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel “. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, claim elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 13, depending on claim 1, which is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea, further recites:
[A] wherein the method further comprises transferring to the trajectory of the at least one well as deformed, and after the deforming, at least part of the data distributed along the trajectory and provided for the at least one well before the deforming.
The additional elements [A] are insignificant extra-solution activities, data output, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel “. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, when considered as a whole, claim elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claim 13 is deemed ineligible.
Claims 8-11. 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. They depend directly or indirectly on claim 1, which is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations further recite:
[A8] “wherein the matrix is a sparse matrix”,
[A9]“wherein the matrix is a Laplacian matrix”,
[A10] “wherein the function is a quadratic function of the vector, of the type
PNG
media_image1.png
41
51
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where: d is the application of the displacement to the points, and L is the matrix.” and
[A11] wherein “the minimizing of the energy comprises applying a global optimization algorithm, the minimizing of the energy is performed under a constraint of equality between each horizon marker point and a position of the geomodel consistent with the horizon marker of each respective horizon marker point, and under a constraint of inequality representing belonging of each point to a zone of the geomodel consistent with the respective geological unit of the point, and the global optimization algorithm is an active set algorithm”.
[A21] “wherein the trajectory and the data distributed along the trajectory are determined from measurements.”
The “minimizing of the energy comprises applying a global optimization algorithm” recites a mathematical concept, which further refines the abstract idea of claim 10, no more than that the abstract idea “deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel” refined to indicate that “deforming” involves “energy minimization”.
The further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps.
These limitations describe the structure, nature/form, and/or content of other claim elements – the matrix representing the trajectory as a graph; how the energy that is minimized is expressed or constrained – and as such, cannot change the nature of the key identified abstract idea (“deforming the trajectory of a well constrained by consistency with a geomodel”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07).
The limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment – they do not effect an improvement in technology or technical field. Instead, they simply add further detail to the same abstract idea, and as such they do not amount to “significantly more” under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework. Therefore, claims 8-11 and 21 are deemed ineligible.
In sum, Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-21 are rejected under 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The 103 rejection of claims 1, 15, 17 has been withdrawn based on the Amendments/Arguments to filed 09/15/2025. The limitation(s) include determining horizon markers and fault markers, associating their respective points with geological units, deforming the trajectory constrained by discontinuities, applying deforming displacements to the trajectory only in directions orthogonal with horizons, minimizing the energy penalizing non-rigidness of deforming, computing a positive-definite matrix representing the trajectory as a graph and discontinuities at each fault marker point, the energy expressed as a function of the positive-definite matrix and or a vector representing displacements, in combination with the all of the remaining limitations.
The closest prior art references of record are Johnston et al, US 20100282508 A1,and Suter et al WO 2012052786 A2, that teach well trajectory optimization using a geomodel with real-time measurements and trajectory updates. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including determining horizon markers and fault markers, associating their respective points with geological units, deforming the trajectory constrained by discontinuities, applying deforming displacements to the trajectory only in directions orthogonal with horizons, minimizing the energy penalizing non-rigidness of deforming, computing a positive-definite matrix representing the trajectory as a graph and discontinuities at each fault marker point, the energy expressed as a function of the positive-definite matrix and or a vector representing displacements, in combination with the remaining limitations.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Frank et al , US 20210247543
Gramstad et al, US 20150047903
Nikolakis-Mouchas et al US 20080289877 A1
Sorkine et al (Laplacian Surface Editing, Eurographics,/ACM SIGGRAPH 2004)
Hendrickx et al Trajectory convergence from coordinate-wise decrease of quadratic energy functions, and applications to platoons, 2019,
Sorkine et al, As-rigid-as-possible surface modeling, SGP '07: Proceedings of the fifth Eurographics symposium on Geometry processing, Pages 109 – 116, July 4 2007
Codas et al, Multiple shooting applied to robust reservoir control optimization including output constraints on coherent risk measure, 2017
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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 on (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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188