DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/21/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 8 and 15 have
been amended, no claim is canceled or added. Thus claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 remain pending in the application. However, new rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) has been made in the current office action based on the amendment.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
As an example, independent claim 1 is amended to recite, in part, "automatically transmitting a control signal to drilling equipment, the control signal executable by the drilling equipment to adjust one or more parameters associated with a recovery efficiency of the drilling operation to avoid a challenge identified via the first karst feature or the second karst feature, and the control signal based on the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature applied to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network." Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Even assuming arguendo that amended claim 1 recites a judicial exception, which Applicant expressly does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements of amended claim 1 clearly integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by improving the technical field of drilling a wellbore. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) states that "[l]imitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." MPEP 2106.05(a) continues that "[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and...identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art."
The Office Action at page 5 alleged that "However, the limitation does not require transmitting a control signal to drilling equipment, automatically executing a physical modification, or implementing a real world adjustment. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the recited 'adjusting, by applying...' broadly encompasses generating, updating, or outputting parameter values or command instructions derived from the modeled karst features, and it constitutes post-solution activity (i.e., outputting or communicating the result of the abstract modeling process) as insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." While Applicant respectfully disagrees, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 obviates the Office Action's argument. For example, amended claim 1 involves providing a control signal, based on modeled karst features, to drilling equipment to cause the drilling equipment to make a physical adjustment (e.g., adjusting one or more parameters associated with a recovery efficiency of the drilling operation to avoid a challenge). Thus, the foregoing feature of amended claim 1 is not insignificant extra-solution activity and integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, paragraph [0026] of the originally filed application states that "the output from the computing device 104 can be used to address various challenges, such as water cut and lost circulation, associated with the wellbore operations." Thus, the originally filed application identifies one or more technical problems (e.g., water cut, lost circulation, etc.) associated with wellbore operations such as a drilling operation. Additionally, paragraph [0040] of the originally filed application states that "The modeled karst features 108 can be used to improve one or more wellbore operations with respect to the karst formation 100. For example, the computing device 104 can use the modeled karst features 108 to determine a recovery efficiency to avoid water cut or other challenges with respect to forming a target wellbore in the subterranean formation 102." Thus, the originally filed application discloses a technical improvement, such as via applying the modeled karst features to wellbore operations, that provides an improvement over the prior art. Amended claim 1 incorporates the technical improvement at least via the feature of "automatically transmitting a control signal to drilling equipment, the control signal executable by the drilling equipment to adjust one or more parameters associated with a recovery efficiency of the drilling operation to avoid a challenge identified via the first karst feature or the second karst feature, and the control signal based on the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature applied to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network." So, amended claim 1 clearly integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application at least by involving a technical improvement to a technical field.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent claims 8 and 15 are amended to recite the same or similar features as amended claim 1 and are also directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the same reasons as amended claim 1. The dependent claims depend from and further limit one of amended claims 1, 8, or 15. As discussed above, amended claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to patent- eligible subject matter and overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, the dependent claims are also directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least by virtue of dependency from an allowable base claim and may be patentable for other reasons. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections and allowance of the claims.
(see Response filed 04/21/2026 [pages 9-11]).
Applicant arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the additional elements of amended claim 1 clearly integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by improving the technical field of drilling a wellbore. The argument is not persuasive because the alleged improvement is attributed to abstract modeling operations (i.e., mental process), rather than from the additional elements or combination of additional elements. The additional limitations of receiving input data merely gathers data for use in the abstract modeling operations, while automatically transmitting control signal merely outputs the result of the abstract modeling operations. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology." (emphasis added).
The applicant further argues that amended claim 1 involves providing a control signal, based on modeled karst features, to drilling equipment to cause the drilling equipment to make a physical adjustment (e.g., adjusting one or more parameters associated with a recovery efficiency of the drilling operation to avoid a challenge), and the foregoing feature of amended claim 1 is not insignificant extra-solution activity and integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The argument is not persuasive because, although amended claim 1 recites automatically transmitting a control signal to drilling equipment, the claim merely requires that the transmitted control signal is executable by the drilling equipment to adjust one or more parameters. The claim does not require that the drilling equipment actually execute the transmitted control signal and perform a drilling operation using the adjusted one or more parameters. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion that the claim causes the drilling equipment to make a physical adjustment is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In addition, the claim does not recite a particular manner of generating the control signal, a particular control algorithm, or a feedback control arrangement. Rather, the limitation broadly uses the results of the abstract modeling operations to generate and transmit a control signal for an intended drilling operation purpose. Merely transmitting a control signal, generated from the results of the abstract modeling operations, to generic drilling equipment does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The applicant cited paragraphs [0026] and [0040] of the originally filed specification, and argues that the originally filed application discloses a technical improvement, such as via applying the modeled karst features to wellbore operations, that provides an improvement over the prior art. Amended claim 1 incorporates the technical improvement at least via the feature of "automatically transmitting a control signal to drilling equipment, …" So, amended claim 1 clearly integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application at least by involving a technical improvement to a technical field. The argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, the alleged improvement is attributed to the abstract modeling operation rather than from the additional limitation or combination of additional elements. Although Applicant relies on the recited control signal to demonstrate a technological improvement, amended claim 1 only requires automatically transmitting a control signal to drilling equipment, the control signal executable by the drilling equipment to adjust one or more parameters. The remaining limitations merely describe the modeled information on which the control signal is based and the intended use of the control signal. The claim does not require the drilling equipment to execute the control signal and perform an actual drilling operation using the adjusted one or more drilling parameters. Accordingly, the addition limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the same or substantially similar additional limitations and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the same reason. The dependent claims do not recite additional limitation that integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, as discussed above, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrated judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and the claims dependent thereon, are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the control signal based on the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature applied to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “applied to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry” modifies the control signal the modeled first karst feature or modeled second karst feature, or an earlier modeling operation. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as the control signal is based on the modeled first or second karst feature, where the modeled karst feature results from applying the modeling operation to the fracture properties and fracture geometry.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations, are rejected for the same reason.
The remaining claims are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and rejected for the same reason.
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.
The claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates, and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, claims 1-3 and 6-7 are directed to system and fall within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, claims 8-10 and 13-14 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, claims 15-17 and 20 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium and fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1, The limitation of “generating a plurality of fracture skeletons from the first input data and the second input data” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of reviewing a plurality of fracture properties in a fracture network of a subterranean formation associated with a wellbore operation, together with a plurality of point sets representing fracture geometry of the fracture network, and mentally evaluating, organizing, or sketching simplified structural centerlines or polylines, i.e., fracture skeletons, representing how fractures extend, intersect, or connected based on the spatial arrangement of the point sets and the associated fracture properties. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examiner note: the limitation is recited at high level of generality and does not require any particular algorithm for generating the fracture skeletons, any minimum number of point sets or fracture skeletons beyond a plurality, any particular model resolution, or any computer specific technique that would prevent a person from practically performing the recited generating step mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 1, The limitations of “modeling, using a first karst modeling operation, a first karst feature of a karst formation based on the plurality of fracture skeletons, the first karst modeling operation comprising modeling the first karst feature using a primitive object via a stochastic, object-based modeling operation, the first karst modeling operation comprising:
… a plurality of object parameters including size, major axis, and minor axis;
simulating the primitive object using the plurality of object parameters; and
using the primitive object as a plurality of distributed point sets to surround the plurality of fracture skeletons to represent the first karst feature of the karst formation” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of reviewing constructed or sketched fracture skeleton representations, selecting or considering object parameters including size and axis lengths, mentally forming or sketching a primitive geometric object (e.g., an ellipsoid or cylinder) based on the parameters, and arranging points representing the primitive object around the fracture skeleton representations to represent the first karst feature of the karst formation. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examiner note: Under BRI, the recited “object parameters” broadly encompasses considering or identifying geometric characteristics. The recited “simulating” broadly encompassed mentally forming or sketching a primitive geometric shape based on the parameters. The recited “using the primitive object …to surround the plurality of fracture skeletons” broadly encompasses mentally arranging or sketching point representing the primitive object around the generated fracture skeleton representations. Further, The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not require a particular point cloud processing, three dimensional computer rendering, a particular geometric modeling technique, a specified model resolution or data volume, or specialized computing hardware that would prevent a person from practically performing the recited modeling step mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 1, The limitations of “modeling, using a second karst modeling operation, a second karst feature of the karst formation based on the plurality of fracture skeletons, the second karst modeling operation comprising modeling the second karst feature by using a plurality of cross-sections via the stochastic, object-based modeling operation, the second karst modeling operation comprising:
simulating the plurality of cross-sections for the plurality of fracture skeletons based on the plurality of fracture properties at each skeleton vertex in the plurality of fracture skeletons;
distributing the plurality of point sets around the plurality of cross- sections; and
distributing triangular surface meshes from the plurality of point sets around the plurality of cross-sections during a sweeping process to link the plurality of cross-sections” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of reviewing constructed or sketched fracture skeleton representations, considering fracture properties (e.g., aperture, permeability, porosity) at various skeleton vertices, mentally forming or sketching corresponding cross-sectional shapes along the fracture skeletons based on the properties, placing points around the cross-sectional shapes, and drawing connecting surfaces (e.g., triangular surfaces) between adjacent cross-sections to represent the second karst feature of the karst formation. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examiner note: Under BRI, the recited “simulating” of cross-sections broadly encompassed forming or shechting geometric cross-sectional shapes based on fracture properties associated with respective fracture skeleton vertices. The recited “distributing point sets” broadly encompasses placing or arranging points around the cross-sections shapes. The recited “distributing triangular surface meshes … during a sweeping process” broadly encompasses connecting adjacent cross-sections by drawing surfaces (e.g., triangular surfaces) between them. The limitations are recited at high level of generality and do not recite any particular mesh algorithm, sweeping algorithm, numerical technique, specialized hardware, or unconventional computer architecture that would that would prevent a person from practically performing the recited modeling step mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the similar elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 8 and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operations” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by a processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations,” which are merely recitations of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP $2106.05(f)).
Further, the following additional element – “receiving first input data that includes a plurality of fracture properties in a fracture network of a subterranean formation associated with a wellbore operation that comprises a drilling operation” and “receiving second input data that includes a plurality of point sets from a fracture geometry of the fracture network” and “receiving a plurality of object parameters including size, major axis, and minor axis,” which merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., receiving data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further, the following additional element – “automatically transmitting a control signal to drilling equipment, the control signal executable by the drilling equipment to adjust adjusting one or more parameters associated with a recovery efficiency of the drilling operation to avoid a challenge identified via the first karst feature or the second karst feature, and the control signal based on the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature applied to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network,” which merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data output (i.e., transmitting/outputting control signal based on the modeled feature), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Although the limitation requires transmitting the control signal to drilling equipment, it merely requires the transmitted control signal is executable by the drilling equipment to adjust one or more parameters. The limitation does not require execution of the control signal to performance of any drilling operation based on the adjusted one or more parameters. Thus, the limitation merely communicates instructions or results derived from the abstract modelling process for possible subsequent use, which constitutes insignificant post-solution activity and does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Alternately, even if the recited limitations “using a first karst modeling operation” and “… via a stochastic, object-based modeling operation, …” and “simulating the primitive object …” and “using the primitive object as a plurality of distributed point sets to surround the plurality of fracture skeletons to represent the first karst feature of the karst formation” and “using a second karst modeling operation” and “… via the stochastic, object-based modeling operation, …” and “simulating the plurality of cross-sections …” and “distributing the plurality of point sets …” and “distributing triangular surfaces meshes … during a sweeping process to link the plurality of cross-sections” are considered additional elements rather than part of the abstract idea, they merely instruct a generic computing component to perform generic geological modeling or geometric construction operation. The limitations recites at a high level of generality and do not recite any particular computer architecture, specialize hardware, or improvement to computer functionality, but instead merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, or instruct a computer to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP §§ MPEP §2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 8 and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, … iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
As discussed above, the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely receive data for use in the abstract modeling operations, perform the modeling operations using a generic compute, and transmit the resulting control signal to drilling equipment. The claim does not recite a specific control algorithm, specialized hardware configuration, unconventional processing technique, or particular technological mechanism for controlling the drilling equipment. Rather, the computer is used as generic tool to receive and process data, perform modeling and geometric manipulation, generate a control signal, and transmit the control signal for its intended use. Therefore, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For example, the reference Zhang (“Geo-steering technology for horizontal wells in deep karst Dengying reservoirs of the Gaoshiti gas field, Central Sichuan Basin,” published in 2020), teaches establishing a geological model of fracture-vug (karst) bodies based on seismic and logging data and using the modeled karst features to guide well trajectory optimization. The reference further discloses adjusting drilling parameters, including inclination angle and trajectory direction, to avoid unfavorable geological formations and drilling risks (e.g., page. 244, ‘5. Conclusions’).
Tchakarov (US20120046868A1) discloses [0003] the use of on-site and remote geosteering methods are well known in the downhole drilling arts … Real-time geological measurements, for example, measurement while drilling (MWD), logging while drilling (LWD), and/or mud logging measurements, are made while drilling. [0004] The transmitted data is then processed at the surface in combination with a model of the subterranean formations to determine a subsequent drilling direction (or a correction to the current drilling direction). Changes to the predetermined (preplanned) drilling direction (e.g., in the form of a corrected well path) are then transmitted from the surface to a downhole steering tool (e.g., via conventional downlinking techniques).
Therefore, the references demonstrate that determining drilling adjustments from modeled geological features and transmitting the data to change drilling equipment parameters were well-understood, routine and conventional geosteering actives.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 8 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process at a high level of generality, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claim 2 recites “the second input data comprises a plurality surface triangular meshes from the plurality of point sets.”
This merely further defines second input data comprises surface triangular meshes from the plurality of point sets; therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., second input data) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 recites “the plurality of fracture properties comprises aperture, permeability, and porosity in the fracture network of the subterranean formation.”
This merely further defines first input data associated with fracture properties comprises aperture, permeability, and porosity in the fracture network of the subterranean formation; therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., first input data) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “the operations further comprise refining the plurality of fracture skeletons by reducing and discarding selected edges of each skeleton of the plurality of fracture skeletons using a minimum spanning tree algorithm,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and evaluating a plurality of fracture skeletons, determining edges can be reduced and discarded based on calculations (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).). The limitation “using a minimum spanning tree algorithm” also can be considered represent mathematical concept because the minimum spanning tree algorithm is a method for finding the most efficient way to connect all the vertices (or nodes) in a weighted, undirected graph, minimizing the total weight of the edges used. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30162-4_239; Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “the operations further comprise generating a graphical user interface configured to: receive epigenic karst parameters and hypogenic karst parameters for use in simulating a three-dimensional geological object that includes a fracture, a vug, a doline, a passage, or a cave; and scale, using the epigenic karst parameters and the hypogenic karst parameters, the first karst feature or the second karst feature to a regular grid or an unstructured grid for simulating the three-dimensional geological object.”
This merely further specifies a user interface is generated for receive epigenic karst parameters and hypogenic karst parameters and scale the first or the second karst feature to a regular grid or an unstructured grid for use in simulating a three-dimensional geological object, therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as Insignificant application such as user interface is generated for receiving and scaling data, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 9-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 recite the similar elements as claims 2-3, 6-7, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the
rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, the closest prior arts found, Yarus (US20190080032A1), discloses generating a plurality of fracture skeletons from the first input data and the second input data, simulating a plurality of cross-sections for the plurality of fracture skeletons based on the plurality of fracture properties at each skeleton vertex in the plurality of fracture skeletons; distributing the plurality of point sets around the plurality of cross- sections; and distributing triangular surfaces meshes from the plurality of point sets around the plurality of cross-sections. Moore (US20190204464A1), discloses modeling karst feature of a karst formation based on the plurality of fracture skeletons, simulating the primitive object using the plurality of object parameters; and using the primitive object as a plurality of distributed point sets to surround the plurality of fracture skeletons to represent karst feature of the karst formation and adjusting, by using the modeled karst feature, one or more parameters of the drilling operation to avoid a challenge identified via the karst feature. Fourno (US20120116740A1), discloses a plurality of object parameters including size, major axis, and minor axis. Comsol (“about sweep meshes”), discloses linking the plurality of cross-sections by a sweeping process. Rongier (“Simulation of 3D karst conduits with an object-distance based method integrating geological knowledge”), discloses using a primitive object via a stochastic, object-based modeling operation and using a plurality of cross-sections via the stochastic, object-based modeling operation.
However, In light of record taken as a whole, the system claim 1, method claim 8 and manufacture claim 15 are considered to be patentable distinct over the prior art. In particular, the prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest in combination of limitations “modeling, using a first karst modeling operation, a first karst feature of a karst formation based on the plurality of fracture skeletons, the first karst modeling operation comprising modeling the first karst feature using a primitive object via a stochastic, object-based modeling operation, the first karst modeling operation comprising:
receiving a plurality of object parameters including size, major axis, and minor axis;
simulating the primitive object using the plurality of object parameters; and
using the primitive object as a plurality of distributed point sets to surround the plurality of fracture skeletons to represent the first karst feature of the karst formation;
modeling, using a second karst modeling operation, a second karst feature of the karst formation based on the plurality of fracture skeletons, the second karst modeling operation comprising modeling the second karst feature by using a plurality of cross-sections via the stochastic, object-based modeling operation, the second karst modeling operation comprising:
simulating the plurality of cross-sections for the plurality of fracture skeletons based on the plurality of fracture properties at each skeleton vertex in the plurality of fracture skeletons;
distributing the plurality of point sets around the plurality of cross-sections; and
distributing triangular surfaces meshes from the plurality of point sets around the plurality of cross-sections during a sweeping process to link the plurality of cross-sections;” as disclosed in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 are allowed as being dependent from allowed claims 1, 8 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights