DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 26 have been presented for examination. Claims 23 – 26 are new. Claim 21 – 22 are currently amended.
Response to §101 Rejection of the Claims
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “These steps cannot be done mentally because:
• Turning-band simulation requires large-scale numerical computations and covariance modeling that no human mind can perform.
• Generation of conditional Gaussian fields requires matrix operations, random field generation, variogram modeling, and interpolation steps that are computationally intensive even on modem hardware.
• Parallel execution across multiple processing elements is not a mental activity and is expressly tied to computer architecture”. (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that various of the recited limitations are not reasonably performed in the mind. Examiner notes that the claim does not explicitly recite performing a “turning-band simulation”. Indeed, the recited “determining a set of turning band lines for the reservoir area” are later used to “determine intermediate results with respect to each subset of turning band lines”. Therefore, the act of determining the turning band lines themselves is reasonably performed in the mind.
Regarding the “generation of conditional Gaussian fields”, Applicant argues that these require mathematical operations. Therefore, it recites mathematical concepts since it recites generation fields having specific mathematical relationships (i.e., “conditional”) and specific mathematical forms (i.e., “Gaussian”).
Regarding the “parallel execution”, this amounts to applying the abstract idea requiring no more than a general purpose computer system.
Applicant argues: “The Examiner interprets "determine intermediate results" in isolation, ignoring its mandatory context: determining, in parallel, for each tile, intermediate results with respect to each respective subset of turning-band lines. A mental process cannot be: 1) executed in parallel across multiple PEs; 2) executed on globally defined turning-band lines; or 3) executed using Gaussian simulation requiring computer-scale numeric precision.” (emphasis added)
Applicant appears to argues that Examiner improperly performed piecemeal analysis of the limitation “determining, in parallel for each tile, intermediate results with respect to each respective subset of turning band lines”. Examiner notes that the claim covers the determination being performed independently and in parallel, where each tile is explicitly “assign[] at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs”. Interpreting the claim as an ordered combination of limitations, it requires no more than performing independent determining intermediate results in combination with independent parallel executions using generic “processing elements”. Therefore, the “determining, in parallel for each tile, intermediate results” is reasonably interpreted as performing multiple determining steps, but for the recitation of execution requiring no more than general purpose computing elements. The recitation of the determining being “in parallel” in no way changes how the execution are performed after the “assign[] at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs”. Further, the “Gaussian simulation” covers mathematical concepts related to the geostatistical simulation (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101)
Applicant argues: “The specification explains: 1) dividing a reservoir area into tiles allows parallel execution, 2) but prior approaches produce artifacts at tile boundaries, and 3) and the invention solves this specific computing problem by simulating turning-band lines for the entire reservoir and assigning globally consistent subsets to each PE.” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the problem being overcome is the production of artifacts are the tile boundaries. Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not preclude a separate step for removing the artifacts which occur after assignation to tiles (see claim 21). Therefore, merely dividing the reservoir area into tiles and simulating using globally consistent turning-band lines does not appear to effectuate the removal (or alternatively the avoidance) of said artifacts (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112).
Applicant argues: “The invention provides: 1) a new way of distributing geostatistical simulation across multiple computing elements that eliminates boundary artifacts, 2) a novel subdivision of turning-band lines such that each tile includes a consistent subset, and 3) a new form of parallel execution enabling tile-level simulation without losing continuity across the reservoir. This is an improvement to computer functionality, not a mere use of computers” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a novel method of geostatistical simulation, and novel subdivision of turning-band lines. Examiner notes that novelty or non-obvious does not, by itself, transform the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Regarding the parallel execution, it requires no more than the use of general purpose computer elements (i.e., “processing elements”) in combination with commercially available “distributed-computing framework”. Therefore, the parallel execution itself amounts to reciting the words “apply it”, and does not amount to an improvement to computer functionality.
Applicant argues: “The claims recite: 1) processing a well data set; 2) determining a reservoir area; 3) generating turning-band lines for the entire area; 4) partitioning the area such that each tile includes a subset of the same global turning-band lines; 5) parallel computation of Gaussian fields; and 6) aggregation into a continuous geostatistical model.
These are not generic computer functions. These operations are specialized numerical operations in geostatistics, achievable only through structured architectural constraints unique to the invention” (emphasis added)
Examiner notes that “processing a well data set” is not explicitly recited in the claimed invention. Further, “determining a reservoir area” and “determining a set of turning band lines for the reservoir area” and “and “dividing the reservoir area into a plurality of tiles, each tile including a respective subset of the set of turning band lines” does not require special numerical operations in geostatistics since the “determining … intermediate results” is subsequently performed. Further, “parallel computation of Gaussian fields” is not explicitly recited since claim 6 merely recites “converting the well data set into conditional gaussian data, wherein the geostatistical simulation is a truncated Gaussian simulation and the intermediate results represent simulated Gaussian fields” which is part of the geostatistical, and then a later step of “converting, by each respective PE, the simulated Gaussian fields into one or more discrete distributions” which merely uses the results of the simulation.
Applicant argues: “The inventive concept is the global turning-band simulation architecture that enables distributed simulation without tile-boundary artifacts … This architecture is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.”
Applicant argues various limitations that are part of the abstract as comprising the inventive concept, including generating an artifact-free model. Examiner that the parallel execution itself is not inventive since prior art simulations were executing in parallel (albeit, potentially having artifacts). Further, it is not clear that the claimed invention results in “artifact-free model” since claim 21 explicitly recites removing artifacts as a later step.
Applicant argues: “The Examiner asserts that "operations are generally parallelized to make them run faster, " and not because they cannot run on a single machine." This is irrelevant and legally incorrect. Under Amdocs and BASCOM, distributed computing solutions can be patent-eligible even when the function could conceivably be done on one machine. Eligibility depends on the specific architecture, not whether it could theoretically run on one processor.
More importantly, turning-band simulation of field-scale datasets cannot practically be performed on a single processor due to memory constraints, processing time, and covariance matrix size. The specification explains the need for distributed computation. Also, the invention solves a real-world HPC (high-performance computing) defect: tile-boundary artifacts” (emphasis added)
The assertion by Examiner was in direct response to Applicant’s arguments (see Response dated 09/17/2025, Page 9 “As a second example, the entire reason the operations need to be parallelized is because the amount of processing required to perform the operations is too great for a single processing element.”). Therefore, it is relevant and merely points out an inconsistency in Applicant’s previous arguments since this is not explicitly disclosed. Further, it is explicitly disclosed that the claimed invention can be performed in a single computer having multiple processors (see the instant application Paragraph 19 “In some implementations, the operations of the flow diagram 400 may be performed on multiple processors or cores of a single computer system”).
Response to §112 Rejection of the Claims
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(b) rejection. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 112(a) enablement have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The Examiner's conclusions rest on the assumption that the claims require disclosure of a specific, separate "artifact removal algorithm." The claims require no such thing, and the specification expressly and repeatedly discloses how the claimed artifact-free graphical representation is achieved …
This architecture inherently eliminates tile-boundary artifacts:
"The graphical representation resulting from the operations ... does not include artifacts indicating how the reservoir data set was divided."
Thus, the specification expressly teaches why artifacts disappear and how the architecture produces a graphical representation "without artifacts indicating how the reservoir area was divided." Additionally, FIG. ID (artifacts present) and FIG. IE (artifacts removed) visually reinforce this disclosure” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that specification “expressly” discloses the artifact-free graphical representation, and then argues that “this architecture inherently eliminates tile-boundary artifacts”. Further, the mere display of two figures, one with artifacts and one without, does not expressly teach how to eliminate all tile-boundary, especially when said artifacts require an additional removal step (see claim 21).
Applicant argues: “Within the context of the application, the "removing" is accomplished by the simulation architecture itself, which: • generates Gaussian fields using globally consistent turning bands, and • prevents the tile-boundary discontinuities that are the artifacts. The law does not require disclosure of algorithms for artifacts that are never produced due to the improved simulation design”
Examiner notes that “removing” is a positive action that requires said artifacts to exist to begin with. Otherwise, they could not be removed.
Applicant argues:
“Breadth of the claim: The claim does not cover every type of artifact for every type of data. It covers artifacts indicating how the reservoir was divided, which the specification directly addresses.
• Nature of the invention: The invention solves a known artifact-boundary problem using a well-understood turning-bands technique applied globally.
• Level of skill: The person of ordinary skill in the art is highly skilled in geostatistics and would immediately understand why global turning bands eliminate boundary artifacts.
• Direction in the specification: The specification explains the mechanism of artifact prevention in detail (see citations above).
• Working examples: Figures 1D and 1E are working examples comparing prior-art artifacts to the artifact-free result achieved by the invention.
• Amount of experimentation: No undue experimentation is needed; the architecture automatically prevents artifacts.” (emphasis added)
Breadth of the claim: the plain meaning of the term “artifacts” covers any type of artifact resulting from how the reservoir was divided, and for every type of data. Merely limiting the artifacts to those that results from how the reservoir was divided does not meaningfully limit the breadth of the recited “artifacts”.
Nature of the invention: Applicant’s response does not specifically address the artifact removal
Level of skill: Applicant’s provides a conclusory argument that artifact removal is within the ordinary level of skill in the art, however previously argues that the method is novel
Direction in the specification: Applicant previously argued that the removal of the artifacts is inherent to the disclosure (see previous arguments “this architecture inherently eliminates tile-boundary artifacts”)
Working examples: the mere existence of two figures, one with artifacts and the other without, does not provide detail on how the result itself is achieved.
Amount of experimentation: claim 21 explicitly recites an additional remove step. Therefore it is not clear that the removal of said artifacts is inherent to the architecture by automatically preventing them.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 112(a) written have been fully considered, and they are persuasive in part.
Applicant argues: “The Office alleges that written description is lacking because the specification does not recite an explicit "algorithm" for removal. But the Federal Circuit has long held that written description is satisfied when the specification reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of the claimed result, even without disclosing every implementation detail …
Accordingly,, the specification demonstrates possession of the invention through the detailed description and illustrative figures.”
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive over claim 22 which recites the non-inclusion of artifacts, and not their positive removal. Examiner notes that the recited “generating a graphical representation … does not include” reasonably encompasses a step to remove artifacts as part of generating the graphical representation, and does not require avoidance of artifacts inherently as part of the simulation architecture itself.
Response to §103 Rejection of the Claims
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues: “Emery works on continuous 2D/3D domains. There is no subdivision, no tiling, and no parallel computing architecture. The Office alleges that "problems can be broken into subproblems." However, there is no teaching, suggestion, or rationale with evidence. It is hindsight.
… Nothing in Emery addresses:
• artifacts caused by parallel execution,
• heterogeneity at tile boundaries, or
• distributing subsets of global turning-band lines to different processing elements
The Examiner's reasoning is simply that because Emery uses turning-band simulation and because tiling is known, combining the two is obvious. This is classic impermissible hindsight.
…
Maliassov:
• does not use turning bands,
• does not partition simulation domains into tiles,
• does not perform distributed Gaussian simulation,
• does not address tile-boundary artifacts.
Thus, Maliassov offers no teaching toward the missing limitations.
…
Gribov teaches random lines, not turning-band lines, and specifically does not require consistency across tiles. The Examiner acknowledges this but argues that random lines "do not preclude" being a subset of turning-band lines. This is not a proper obviousness rationale.
…
The Office has not shown:
• a reason to generate turning-band lines for an entire reservoir,” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the claimed invention explicitly recites “a set of turning band lines” in combination with “each tile including a respective subset of the set of turning band lines” which amounts to a global set of turning band lines for all the tiles. Looking to the disclosure, Figure 1B – 1C explicitly show a set of turning band lines in each tile, and Figure 3A - 3B explicitly show a set of turning band lines across the tiles (see the instant application Paragraph 15 “As shown in Figure 1C, the geological data system also may determine turning band lines 112 for each tile … “Figure 3A is a diagram illustrating turning band lines for a reservoir area.”). Therefore, the claimed invention is analogous to Figure 3A – 3B under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Although the prior art references teach elements of the claim (i.e., turning band lines, tiles, executing subproblems), the prior art of record does not appear to explicitly disclose the recited set of turning band lines across the tiles.
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 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With regard to claims 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make and/or use the following aspect of the invention without undue experimentation: “removing artifacts indicating how the reservoir area was divided”. The court case In Re Wands sets forth factors which are to be considered when making an enablement rejection based on undue experimentation (see MPEP 2164.01(a)):
The breadth of the claims: The invention is in the field of geostatics which covers operations on any desired geological attributes in a subsurface. Therefore, the recited “well data set” covers any data obtainable from a subsurface (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). Looking to the disclosure, there is no further detail regarding what types of “artifacts” are removed, nor the manner in which they are removed. The specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without "undue experimentation" (see MPEP 2164.08). The wide range of “well data set” and “artifacts” covered by the claims potentially requires a large range of algorithms for removing one or more artifacts which could depend on the specific type of well data that was divided. The specification does not sufficiently disclose how the method achieves the removal of the artifacts for the full range of well data set and/or artifacts.
The nature of the invention: The invention solves the problem of removing artifacts after aggregating intermediate results that are determined in parallel to form a final result, which is a recognized problem (see the instant application Paragraph 14 “As noted, a geological data set (such as data values associated with a space in the earth) may be subdivided to parallelize operations of a simulation. Unfortunately, such parallelism may produce simulation results that contain artifacts relating to how the geological data set was subdivided”). The specification does not sufficiently disclose how the method achieves the removal of the artifacts at least for the cases in which they may be contained in the aggerated intermediate results, and the claims do not place any limits on which “final results” and/or artifacts are covered.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor (in their specification): The applicant has set forth merely that artifacts are “avoided” or that the simulation “does not include artifacts” which does not in any disclose how they are removed (i.e., the disclosed avoiding could come from the artifacts never being generated in the first place). One of ordinary skill in the art is not enabled to perform the recited “remove artifacts” since there is further no detail recited.
The existence of working examples: The applicant has set forth merely that artifacts are “avoided” or that the simulation “does not include artifacts” which does not in any disclose how they are removed (i.e., the disclosed avoiding could come from the artifacts never being generated in the first place). There are not disclosed any working examples showing how to perform the recited “remove artifacts”.
The quantity of the experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure without undue experimentation. There is no guidance on selecting the appropriate algorithm for removing the artifacts, the most suitable algorithm potentially depending on the specific well data set and/or artifacts that could exist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to conduct undue experimentation with different algorithms and/or different data sets to be able to remove the artifacts.
Applicants must respond to this rejection persuasively and/or amend the claims in order for this rejection to be withdrawn.
With regard to claims 22, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make and/or use the following aspect of the invention without undue experimentation: “the graphical representation does not include artifacts indicated how the reservoir area was divided”. The court case In Re Wands sets forth factors which are to be considered when making an enablement rejection based on undue experimentation (see MPEP 2164.01(a)):
The breadth of the claims: The invention is in the field of geostatics which covers operations on any desired geological attributes in a subsurface. Therefore, the recited “well data set” covers any data obtainable from a subsurface (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). Looking to the disclosure, there is no further detail regarding what types of “artifacts” are not included, nor the manner in which they are precluded from being included. The specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without "undue experimentation" (see MPEP 2164.08). The wide range of “well data set” and “artifacts” covered by the claims potentially requires a large range of algorithms for avoiding (or potentially removing) one or more artifacts which could depend on the specific type of well data that was divided. The specification does not sufficiently disclose how the method achieves not including the artifacts for the full range of well data set and/or artifacts.
The nature of the invention: The invention solves the problem of avoiding artifacts after aggregating intermediate results that are determined in parallel to form a final result, which is a recognized problem (see the instant application Paragraph 14 “As noted, a geological data set (such as data values associated with a space in the earth) may be subdivided to parallelize operations of a simulation. Unfortunately, such parallelism may produce simulation results that contain artifacts relating to how the geological data set was subdivided … Some implementations of this disclosure (described in more detail below) avoid such artifacts while still achieving parallelism for the simulation”). The specification does not sufficiently disclose how the method achieves not including the artifacts at least for the cases in which they may be contained in the aggerated intermediate results, and the claims do not place any limits on which “final results” and/or artifacts are covered.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor (in their specification): The applicant has set forth merely that artifacts are “avoided” or that the simulation “does not include artifacts” which does not in any disclose how this is accomplished. Specifically, they could have been generated and then removed, or they may never have been created in the first place due in part to the “dividing the reservoir area in into a plurality of tiles …; assigning at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs; determining, in parallel for each tile, intermediate results …; aggregating the intermediate results to form a final result”. One of ordinary skill in the art is not achieve not including the artifacts since there is no further no detail recited on where or how this is accomplished.
The existence of working examples: The applicant has set forth merely that artifacts are “avoided” or that the simulation “does not include artifacts” which does not in any disclose how they are removed (i.e., the disclosed avoiding could come from the artifacts never being generated in the first place). There are not disclosed any working examples showing how to achieve not including the artifacts.
The quantity of the experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure without undue experimentation. There is no guidance on selecting the appropriate algorithm for achieving not including the artifacts, nor any guidance on how any of the one or more previously recited steps is implemented to accomplish the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to conduct undue experimentation with different algorithms and/or different data sets to be able to remove the artifacts.
Applicants must respond to this rejection persuasively and/or amend the claims in order for this rejection to be withdrawn.
Claim 21 is 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.
With regard to claims 21, it recites “removing artifacts indicating how the reservoir area was divided”. A review of the specification shows that there is not explicitly disclosed removing of any artifacts. Examiner notes that there is disclosed avoid artifacts, however the artifacts need not have been avoided by their direct removal (i.e., they could have never been generated to begin with) (see the instant application Paragraph 14 “Some implementations of this disclosure (described in more detail below) avoid such artifacts while still achieving parallelism for the simulation”, and Figure 1D – 1E which shows artifacts not existing as a result of the claimed invention, without any detail on how to achieve this result). Therefore, Applicant does not appear to have had possession of the recited “removing artifacts indicating how the reservoir data set was divided” at least for the cases in which they may be contained in the aggerated intermediate results (see the instant application Paragraph 14 “As noted, a geological data set (such as data values associated with a space in the earth) may be subdivided to parallelize operations of a simulation. Unfortunately, such parallelism may produce simulation results that contain artifacts relating to how the geological data set was subdivided”).
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 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for parallelizing operations of a geostatistical simulation for a well data set via a plurality of processing elements (PEs), comprising: determining a reservoir area for the well data set; determining a set of turning band lines for the reservoir area; dividing the reservoir area into a plurality of tiles, each tile including a respective subset of the set of turning band lines; assigning at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs; determining, for each tile, intermediate results with respect to each respective subset of turning band lines. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “dividing” and “assigning” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality which require no more than judgement and evaluations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is for parallelizing by a geological data system via a plurality of processing elements (PEs); that the determining is in parallel for each tile; aggregating the intermediate results to form a final result of the geostatistical simulation. The “parallelizing by a geological data system via a plurality of processing elements (PEs)” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “in parallel” amounts to performing the determining on the plurality of PEs, which is analogous to the preamble “parallelizing … via a plurality of processing elements (PEs)”. The “aggregating” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “to form a final result” is recited as intended use (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “parallelizing by a geological data system via a plurality of processing elements (PEs)” and “in parallel” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the recited “aggregating” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “aggregating” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 (and 10 and 17) and 6 (and 13 and 20) and 7 (and 14) and 26 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 3 wherein each of the turning band lines emanate from a central point of the reservoir area; Claim 6 converting the well data set into conditional gaussian data, wherein the geostatistical simulation is a truncated Gaussian simulation and the intermediate results represent simulated Gaussian fields; and converting the simulated Gaussian fields into one or more discrete distributions; Claim 7 wherein each intermediate result is associated with a geostatistical simulation of a Gaussian field in the respective tile; Claim 26 wherein determining the set of turning-band lines comprises generating a plurality of turning-band lines that all originate from a single central point of the reservoir area and extend across boundaries of multiple tiles. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “each of the turning band lines emanate” further limits the parent claim “determining a set of turning bands” and without precluding performance in the mind. The “generating” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality which require no more than judgement and evaluations. The “truncated Gaussian simulation” further limits the preamble without explicitly reciting performance of a geostatistical simulation. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “converting” covers numerical data conversions which result in specific statistical data. The “simulated Gaussian fields“ and “a Gaussian field in the respective tile” further limits the parent claim “determining … intermediate results” to recite specific type of mathematical simulation. The “truncated Gaussian simulation” further limits the preamble related to “operations” of a specific type of mathematical simulation. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the converting the simulated Gaussian fields is by each respective PE. The “by each respective PE” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “by each respective PE” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “converting” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 (and 9 and 16) and 4 (and 11 and 18) and 5 (and 12 and 19) and 21 – 25 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s) which are incorporated. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 2 graphically presenting the final result of the geostatistical simulation as a map of facies associated with the reservoir area; Claim 4 wherein the PEs are native to the geological data system, and wherein the PEs utilize a shared memory structure native to the geological data system; Claim 5 wherein each respective PE is part of a respective remote computer system; Claim 21 generating a graphical representation of the final results, wherein generating the graphical representation of the final results includes removing artifacts indicating how the reservoir area was divided; Claim 22 generating a graphical representation of the final results, wherein the graphical representation does not include artifacts indicating how the reservoir area was divided, wherein graphically presenting the final results of the geostatistical simulation comprises graphically presenting the graphical representation; Claim 23 wherein assigning the tiles to the processing elements comprises distributing each tile via a distributed-computing framework configured to schedule the simulation operations onto heterogeneous computing resources; Claim 24 wherein a wellbore operation is performed based on the geostatistical simulation; Claim 25 controlling an operation for drilling a wellbore based on the geostatistical simulation. For example, the “graphically presenting” and “generating a graphical representation” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is generic with regard to how the result is outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “wherein the PEs are native” and “PEs utilize a shared memory structure” and “remote computer system” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “distributing each tile via a distributed-computing framework” covers commercially available frameworks to achieve the desired result (i.e. schedule the simulation). The “wellbore operation is performed” and “controlling” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since the specific action implemented is recited at a high-level of generality. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “wherein the PEs are native” and “PEs utilize a shared memory structure” and “remote computer system” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “graphically presenting” and “generating a graphical representation” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “distributing each tile via a distributed-computing framework” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see Zhang Abstract “This paper proposes a distributed variant of LSH called Spark-LSH, which is implemented on Apache Spark, a well-known distributed computing framework”). The “wellbore operation is performed” and “controlling” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since the specific action implemented is recited at a high-level of generality. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “graphically presenting” and “generating a graphical representation” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a geological data system for conducting a geostatistical simulation on a well data set via a plurality of processing elements (PEs), the instructions comprising performing steps. The steps can be compared to those in claim 1, which is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) an apparatus comprising: instructions to performs steps. The steps can be compared to those in claim 1, which is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: one or more processors; and
a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor for conducting a geostatistical simulation on a well data set. The “processors” and “computer-readable medium” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processors” and “computer-readable medium” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112:
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 15, and claims 2 – 14 and 16 – 26 by incorporation) method for parallelizing, by a geological data system, operations of a geostatistical simulation for a well data set via a plurality of processing elements (PEs), comprising the steps of: “determining a set of turning band lines for the reservoir area; dividing the reservoir area into a plurality of tiles, each tile including a respective subset of the set of turning band lines; assigning at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs; determining, in parallel for each tile, intermediate results with respect to each respective subset of turning band lines”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Hu, L. “Gradual Deformation and Iterative Calibration of Gaussian-Related Stochastic Models” teaches local deformation method intervenes in the underlying Gaussian white noise of the reservoir model, then by applying the covariance operator on the modified Gaussian white noise, the spatial continuity of the stochastic model is preserved. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: determining a set of turning band lines for the reservoir area; dividing the reservoir area into a plurality of tiles, each tile including a respective subset of the set of turning band lines; assigning at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs; determining, in parallel for each tile, intermediate results with respect to each respective subset of turning band lines.
Burstedde, et al. “Enhancing speed and scalability of the ParFlow simulation code” teaches modified version of ParFlow such that it allows for configurations in which one process may hold multiple subgrids. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: determining a set of turning band lines for the reservoir area; dividing the reservoir area into a plurality of tiles, each tile including a respective subset of the set of turning band lines; assigning at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs; determining, in parallel for each tile, intermediate results with respect to each respective subset of turning band lines.
Maliassov et al. (WO 2012003007) teaches division may be performed by generating an initial partitioning of the simulation model and assigning to different computing units. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: determining a set of turning band lines for the reservoir area; dividing the reservoir area into a plurality of tiles, each tile including a respective subset of the set of turning band lines; assigning at least one of the tiles to each of the PEs; determining, in parallel for each tile, intermediate results with respect to each respective subset of turning band lines.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187