DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, and 47 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 4, 5, 37, and 47 stand currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 1 June 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Regarding §101:
Applicant remarks page 11 argues:
The present claims recite "modeling," "identifying," "determining," and "splitting," which are verbs of action performed in a specific industrial context. None of the equations of the instant Specification appear anywhere in any claim. Therefore, the Office has improperly imported the Specification's equations into the claims to characterize them as mathematical concepts.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Mathematical equations are not the only form of judicially excepted mathematical concept. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Furthermore, recitation of mathematical concepts in prose are equally judicially excepted as mathematical concepts recited in prose.
The claims are properly interpreted in light of the Specification. See MPEP §2111. Applicant fails to articulate any rationale for why Examiner’s claim interpretation is allegedly improper beyond a conclusory disagreement with the result of Examiner’s interpretation. Applicant’s argument here fails to articulate any alternative claim interpretation or identify any principle of claim interpretation which was not followed.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
The "infinite outer boundary" subject matter is a structural feature of how the free-space well connection (hereinafter, "FSWC") method handles the outer-domain coupling problem; the fact that the mathematical abstraction underlying it (free-space Green's functions) treats the domain as unbounded does not transform a reservoir-simulation method into an abstract idea.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s description here is almost entirely mathematical and supports Examiner’s mathematical determinations regarding the infinite outer boundary. Applicant alleges the “infinite outer boundary” is “a structural feature.” Examiner notes that if Applicant can show a demonstration of a physical structure with an infinite outer boundary, then Examiner will withdraw the finding that the infinite outer boundary is a mathematical description and not a physical description.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Lastly, the Office Action's analysis operates at too high a level of generality. Desjardins specifically warned against this. The FSWC method is not "mathematical concepts" in the generic sense. Characterizing it as "mathematical concepts" replicates the over-generalization the PTAB ruled against and found "troubling" in Desjardins (over-generalizing "machine learning as mere algorithms").
This argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant here does not offer any other level of specificity to which Examiner has allegedly fails to consider. The principle of analyzing a claim at too high a level of generality is that doing so precludes interpretation of important specific details recited by the claim. Applicant’s allegation that Examiner has analyzed the claims at a too high level of generality is conclusory as it fails to identify any specific details which Examiner has allegedly fails to appropriately consider.
Applicant remarks page 12 further argues:
The Office Action stated that the disclosed improvements as "improvements to mathematical calculation [that] are the abstract idea itself." But this is what the PTAB rejected in Ex parte Mixter, Appeal 2023-003543 (PTAB Nov. 8, 2024)
This argument is unpersuasive. Ex parte Mixter is not a precedential decision.
Furthermore, the cited quotation of Mixter page 8 begins on page 7 with the opening sentence “On this record, there is no meaningful dispute that the combination of elements recited by the claims result in an improvement to existing artificial neural network technology.” This is clearly not the case for the instant application. Applicant has not even alleged any improvement to artificial neural network technology and there is a meaningful dispute over the subject matter of the instant claims reciting an abstract idea. Specifically, Examiner has found the instant claims as directed towards a mathematical concept. This clearly distinguishes the instant application from the factual circumstances of Mixter.
Examiner has considered the statements cited from Spec. [0133], [0134], and [0139]. These statements are not inconsistent with Examiner’s claim interpretation. In particular, “computational savings,” “solutions” to a mathematical problem, and “recalculating” as described is entirely consistent with Examiner’s identification of mathematical subject matter.
Applicant remarks pages 12-13 further argues:
The Specification-disclosed improvements are reflected in the amended claims. For example:
(I) Computational saving ….
(II) Spatial continuity ….
(III) MPWC accuracy ….
This argument is unpersuasive.
These alleged improvements are each mathematical in nature. Computational savings are a result of improved calculations, which is a category of mathematical concept. Spatial continuity is a mathematical property. MPWC accuracy is a statement regarding the accuracy of the respective mathematical result. Accordingly, even if Examiner finds these alleged improvements are fully reflected in the amended claims, the alleged improvements mathematical nature would not result in subject matter eligibility of the instant claims.
An alleged improvement must be to a technology or technical field, not to the abstract idea itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a)(II) (“However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”).
Regarding §102/103:
Applicant remarks page 13 further argues:
Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of these rejections. As noted in the Allowable Subject Matter section, Applicant incorporates allowable subject matter of claim 3 into claims 1 and 47, thus rendering these rejections moot.
Agreed. Claims 1 and 47 now incorporate the subject matter of originally filed claim 3, see claim set dated 1 March 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 has been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, examiner's objection(s) to the claim(s) are withdrawn. However a new objection is made as follows:
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “a the common face” which appears to be typographic error for “[[a]] the common face.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 has amended to provide antecedent basis for “a point.”. Accordingly, examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 5 under § 112 is withdrawn.
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, 2, 4-12, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A free-space well connection method of determining parameters for modeling a reservoir, …, the modeling module having data representing a grid with a well-cell and at least one link-cell (204i) each of the at least one link-cell having a common face (
Γ
i
) with the well-cell, the well-cell and the at least one link-cell being a local cell array, the method comprising:
modeling, by the modeling module, the local cell array as having an infinite outer boundary by modeling the grid as an infinite space around the local cell array for determination of parameters for the well-cell;
determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
);
determining, by the modeling module, a minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the common face (
Γ
i
); and
splitting, by the modeling module, the common face (
Γ
i
) into more than one boundary element of a plurality of boundary elements if the minimum distance between the well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and the point on the common face (M) is less than a predetermined threshold.
The modeling having data representing a grid of respective cells and faces is a mathematical construction and mathematical representation of the data.
Modeling the cell array as having an infinite outer boundary is a mathematical description. Actual physical infinities do not exist. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the infinite outer boundary to be a description of math.
Determining the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) corresponds to performing respective mathematical calculations using respective mathematical equations. Specification page 40 lines 16-17 states “Once the
P
0
value is known, it is just a straightforward application of Eqs. (7) and (6) for the modeling module 102 to obtain the final values of
T
w
.” Accordingly, the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) is defined by the Specification according to explicitly recited equations 6 and 7 of the Specification. Therefore, the claimed determining of the mathematical entity
T
w
is explicitly determination of mathematical subject matter.
Determining a minimum distance is an explicit mathematical operation.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into boundary elements is further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid. Conditioning the splitting mathematical operation on a determined distance threshold is a mathematical evaluation of a mathematical condition.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
…the method being conducted by a computer system having a processor and non-transitory memory that stores data including instructions to be executed by the processor, the processor executing a modeling module stored in the memory (120), ….
The computer system, processor, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same in step 2B here.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. A method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising modeling, by the modeling module, the at least one link-cell, as having infinitesimal thickness, by assuming the flow through the common face is the same as the flow out of the link-cell through an external face of the link-cell, and a pressure difference between inner and outer faces of the common face (
Γ
i
) is proportional to a volumetric fluid flowrate between the well-cell and one of the at least one link-cells across a thin layer of equivalent transmissibility (
T
0
i
,
i
).
An infinitesimal thickness is further mathematical description. Claim 2 further describes the mathematical construction of the grid and cells.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is a point closest to the well perforation (
Γ
w
).
This is a mathematical description of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is a center point of a the common face (
Γ
i
).
This is a mathematical description of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein if the minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is not less than a predetermined threshold, the common face (
Γ
i
) is considered a boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements.
The minimum distance is mathematical subject matter in the form of geometry. Determining whether or not a common face is a boundary element using these mathematical conditions corresponds to a description of a mathematical algorithm in the form of prose. Lastly, treating respective faces as boundary elements is further mathematical description of the mathematical construction of the grid.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. A method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the modeling module, a minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on a boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements; and
splitting, by the modeling module, the boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements into more than one boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements if the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements is less than a predetermined threshold.
The minimum distance is mathematical subject matter in the form of geometry. The determining of further mathematical entities is further mathematical description.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into boundary elements corresponds with further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid. Determining a threshold condition is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. A method as in claim 7, wherein the determination of whether the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) is less than a predetermined threshold comprises determining whether one of the ratio of the square of the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) to an area of the common face (
Γ
i
) and the ratio of the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) to a square root of the area of the common face (
Γ
i
) is less than a predetermined ratio threshold.
The minimum distance is mathematical subject matter in the form of geometry. Comparison with a threshold is a mathematical operation. The square of the minimum distance is further mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. A method as in claim 1, wherein the more than one boundary element is four boundary elements.
The number of boundary elements of the mathematical construction is mathematical description.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. A method as in claim 1, wherein the more than one boundary element is nine boundary elements.
The number of boundary elements of the mathematical construction is mathematical description.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. A method as in claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the modeling module, a bounding box for one or more of a well perforation (
Γ
w
) and a well perforation segment; and
splitting, by the modeling module, the one or more of the well perforation (
Γ
w
) and a well perforation segment into more than one segment if the bounding box size is above a predetermined threshold.
The determining of a bounding box is a mathematical determination of geometry.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into segments corresponds with further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. A method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the determination of whether the bounding box size is above a predetermined threshold comprises determining whether the maximum dimension (
m
a
x
b
w
/
b
c
) of a ratio of well perforation (segment) bounding box (
b
w
) to a well-cell bounding box (
b
c
) exceeds a predetermined ratio threshold.
Calculation of the maximum dimension and ration is mathematical calculation. Comparison with a threshold is further mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
15. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cell array is analyzed, by the modeling module, by dividing the interface between the well-cell and a link-cell of each of the at least one link-cell and an external environment into "layers", with an "inner layer" representing a relationship of flow between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) and the common face (
Γ
0
i
≡
∂
Ω
0
∩
∂
Ω
i
), a "link layer" representing a relationship of flow between the common face (
Γ
0
i
) and the outer link-cell face (
Γ
i
∞
≡
∂
Ω
i
∩
∂
Ω
∞
), and an "outer layer" representing the relationship of flow between the outer link-cell face (
Γ
i
∞
) and the remote boundary (
Γ
∞
) of an infinite domain (
Ω
∞
).
Analyzing by performing respective mathematical operations is mathematical description of a mathematical algorithm in prose. The inner and outer layers correspond with further mathematical description of the geometric construction.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
16. A method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) comprises:
evaluating, by the modeling module, inner layer equations to form at least one inner boundary condition relation representing physical relationships in the inner layer.
Evaluating inner layer equations is an explicit recitation to perform mathematical calculations based on mathematical equations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 26 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
26. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), uses a total number of boundary condition relations, the total number of boundary condition relations being three times the number of boundary elements of the local cell array plus one (
3
n
+
1
).
The number of boundary condition relationships (equations) and number of boundary elements is further mathematical description.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 26 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 26 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 27 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
27. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), comprises assembling all boundary condition relations in a matrix and a right-hand side vector of equation coefficients.
Assembling boundary conditions relations in a matrix and vector equation coefficients is mathematical subject matter recited in prose.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 27 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 27 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 34 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
34. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a sum of values of the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
∑
i
M
i
) is equal to a total number of link-cells in a set of active link-cells (
A
) in the local cell array.
The sum of values being equal to a total number is a mathematical evaluation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 34 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 34 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 35 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
35. A method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising transmitting the one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a reservoir simulation that simulates fluid flow in a reservoir and using, by the reservoir simulator, the one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to simulate fluid flow in a reservoir.
The well connection transmissibility factor and inter-cell transmissibility multiplier are further recitation of mathematical entities.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 35 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 35 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 37 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
37. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), accounts for a shape function (
f
x
,
x
'
), the shape function representing variations in flux over the common face (
Γ
i
).
The shape function is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 37 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 37 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 38 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
38. A method as claimed in claim 1 further comprising: …
determining, by the modeling module, whether the well-cell is active, based on the inputs.
Determining whether a well-cell is active corresponds to either a mathematical evaluation (mathematical subject matter) and/or mental processes in the form of evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 38 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
receiving, determining, or inputting, by the modeling module, inputs for determining at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier and at least one well connection transmissibility factor; and
Receiving, determining, or otherwise inputting ‘inputs’ corresponds with data gathering recited at an extremely high level of generality. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 38 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of insignificant data gathering: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 40 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
40. A method as in claim 1, further comprising: if a hydraulic conductivity (K) is a non-diagonal tensor within a predetermined threshold, applying mapping, by the modeling module, to spatial coordinates, making the hydraulic conductivity (K) a diagonal tensor.
Applying mapping to make a diagonal tensor is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 40 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 40 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 41 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
41. A method as in claim 1, further comprising:
if a hydraulic conductivity (K) is not a scalar within a predetermined threshold, applying mapping, by the modeling module, to spatial coordinates, making the hydraulic conductivity (K) a scalar.
Being a scalar within a threshold is a mathematical condition. Applying mapping to make a scalar is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 41 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 41 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 44 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
44. A method as in claim 38, further comprising identifying of inactive cells based on a determination, by the modeling module, that the cell has one or more of a pore volume that is below a predetermined pore volume threshold, a permeability below a predetermined permeability threshold, and a transmissibility below a predetermined transmissibility threshold.
Determining whether a pore volume, permeability, or transmissibility value is above or below a threshold is a mathematical comparison.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 44 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 44 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 46 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
46. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), accounts, by the modeling module for a skin factor (S) which is incorporated by the equation,
r
-
w
=
r
w
e
-
S
, where
r
w
is well bore radius.
Modeling a skin factor with the recited equation is explicit recitation of a mathematical equation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 46 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 46 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 47 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
…, the modeling module having data representing a grid with a well-cell and at least one link-cell, each of the at least one link-cell having a common face (
Γ
i
) with the well-cell, the well-cell and the at least one link-cell being a local cell array, the modeling module configured to:
model the local cell array as having an infinite outer boundary by modeling the grid as an infinite space around the local cell array for determination of parameters for the well-cell; and
determine one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
);
determining, by the modeling module, a minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the common face (
Γ
i
); and
splitting, by the modeling module, the common face (
Γ
i
) into more than one boundary element of a plurality of boundary elements if the minimum distance between the well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and the point on the common face (M) is less than a predetermined threshold.
The modeling having data representing a grid of respective cells and faces is a mathematical construction and mathematical representation of the data.
Modeling the cell array as having an infinite outer boundary is a mathematical description. Actual physical infinities do not exist. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the infinite outer boundary to be a description of math.
Determining the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) corresponds to performing respective mathematical calculations using respective mathematical equations. Specification page 40 lines 16-17 states “Once the
P
0
value is known, it is just a straightforward application of Eqs. (7) and (6) for the modeling module 102 to obtain the final values of
T
w
.” Accordingly, the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) is defined by the Specification according to explicitly recited equations 6 and 7 of the Specification. Therefore, the claimed determining of the mathematical entity
T
w
is explicitly determination of mathematical subject matter.
Determining a minimum distance is an explicit mathematical operation.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into boundary elements is further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid. Conditioning the splitting mathematical operation on a determined distance threshold is a mathematical evaluation of a mathematical condition.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 47 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
47. A computer system having a processor and non-transitory memory that stores data including instructions to be executed by the processor, the processor configured to carry out a free-space well connection method of determining parameters for modeling a reservoir by executing a modeling module stored in the memory (120), ….
The computer system, processor, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 47 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same in step 2B here.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, and 47 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US 2017/0212773 A1 Pecher [herein “Pecher”] teaches simulating a hydrocarbon field using a multi-point well connection (MPWC) method. Pecher paragraph 63 last sentence discloses “all internal sources (specifically the well perforations) may be excluded from the domain by interpreting them as part of the boundary
Γ
.” Excluding the internal sources from the domain corresponds to splitting the internal sources of well perforations. Pecher fails to teach a minimum distances between a well perforation and the common face.
Pecher, R. "Breaking the Symmetry with the Multi-Point Well Connection Method" Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-173302-MS (2015) is substantially similar to Pecher discussed immediately above.
US patent 8,489,374 B2 Dogru [herein “Dogru”] teaches determining an equivalent well block radius for reservoir simulation.
Nilsen, H., et al. "Accurate Modeling of Faults by Multipoint, Mimetic, and Mixed Methods" Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 149690, pp. 568-579 (2012) [herein “Nilsen” teaches Transmissibility multipliers in a two-point discretization for modeling faults in a flow simulator.
US 2015/0338550 A1 Wadsley; Andrew teaches characterising Subsurface Reservoirs. Wadsley paragraph 172 teaches multiphase mass balance equations with transmissibility and mobility factors.
US 8,437,997 B2 Meurer; Mary Ellen et al. teaches Dynamic connectivity analysis.
US 9,494,709 B2 Dogru; Ali H. teaches Sequential fully implicit well model for reservoir simulation; Column 8 lines 60 et seq. teach volume balance equations with directional cell transmissibility factors T. Column 10 line 61 equation (19a) combines transmissibilities into a central term for transmissibility.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “determining, by the modeling module, a minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the common face (
Γ
i
); and splitting … if the minimum distance between the well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and the point on the common face (M) is less than a predetermined threshold.” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 8 June 2026
Prosecution Insights