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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 have
been amended, no claim is canceled or added. Thus claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 10/10/2025.
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:
…
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)(1) 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."
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 "adjusting, by applying the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network, 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." 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.
Additionally, MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) 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: [a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any alleged judicial exceptions. For example, amended claim 1 recites, in part, "adjusting, by applying the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network, 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." Here, amended claim 1 involves making an adjustment to particular parameters of a particular operation. For example, while there are many different parameters that can be adjusted for wellbore operations, amended claim 1 involves adjusting parameters associated with recovery efficiency of the drilling operation, which is a particular operation. Thus, amended claim 1 as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any alleged judicial exception.
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 12/19/2025 [pages 11-13]).
In response to applicant's first argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that “amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
For Step 2A, Prong two, the additional element "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.,” merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As described in the instant specification, the computing device can output one or more commands for adjusting wellbore operations, and the output may be used to address challenges such as water cut or lost circulation (see [0026]). 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.
Further, regarding Step 2B, the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely implement the abstract geological modeling process using conventional computer functionality. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm, specialized hardware configuration, unconventional processing technique, or any technological mechanism that changes how the computer operates. Rather, the computer as a tool to perform data reception, modeling, geometric manipulation, and output of results. Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more.
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’). Therefore, the reference demonstrates a well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field, such as applying a modeled karst feature to adjust drilling parameters in order to avoid operational challenges, corresponding to the limitation “adjusting, by applying the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network, 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.”
Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrated judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and dependent claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 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, where the fracture properties include aperture, permeability, and porosity, together with a plurality of point sets representing fracture geometry of the fracture network, and mentally identifying, organizing, or sketching simplified structural centerlines (i.e., fracture skeletons) that represent how fractures extend, intersect, or connected based on the spatial arrangement of the point sets and the associated fracture properties (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).).
Claim 1, The limitations of “modeling, …, 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 …, 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” 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 determining object parameters such as size and axis lengths, mentally forming or sketching a primitive geometric shape (e.g., an ellipsoid or cylinder) based on the parameters, and arranging or positioning the primitive shape relative to the fracture Skeltons to represent a karst feature of the formation (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).). Examiner note: Under BRI, the recited “receiving” of object parameters broadly encompasses considering or identifying geometric characteristics. The recited “simulating” broadly encompassed constructing or defining a geometric shape based on the parameters. The recited “using the primitive object …to surround the plurality of fracture skeletons” broadly encompasses arranging or positioning that geometric shape relative to previously generated fracture skeletons. The limitations do not require any specific algorithm, numerical technique, specialized hardware, or unconventional computer architecture that would preclude performance of the recited steps in the human mind.
Claim 1, The limitations of “modeling, …, 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 …, 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, sketching cross-sectional shapes (e.g., ellipses) 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 a karst feature of the formation. (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).). Examiner note: Under BRI, the recited “simulating” of cross-sections broadly encompassed forming geometric cross-sectional shapes based on fracture properties. The recited “distributing point sets” broadly encompasses placing or arranging points around the cross-sections. The recited “disturbing triangular surface meshes … during a sweeping process” broadly encompasses connecting adjacent cross-sections by drawing surfaces (e.g., triangular surfaces) between them. The limitations do not recite any specific meshing algorithm, numerical solver, specialized hardware, or unconventional computer architecture that would preclude performance of the recited steps in the human mind.
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 merely instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
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., receive data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further, the following additional element – “adjusting, by applying the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network, 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,” merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As described in the instant specification, the computing device can output one or more commands for adjusting wellbore operations, and the output may be used to address challenges such as water cut or lost circulation (see [0026]). 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.
Further, the following additional element – “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,” which merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. are expressed as functional modeling operations. These limitations describe the performance of geological modeling and geometric construction steps, but they do not recite any particular computer architecture, specialized hardware configuration, or specific algorithmic improvement to computing technology.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these operations amount to instructing a computer to perform simulation, stochastic object generation, point-set distribution, cross-sectional construction, and surface mesh linking (i.e., conventional computational modeling tasks). These functional modeling operations are routinely performed by generic processors executing standard geological modeling, 3D modeling, or numerical simulation software platforms (e.g., object-based stochastic modeling tools, 3D mesh generation engines, or general-purpose scientific computing environments). The limitations do not require any modification to computer functionality itself.
Therefore, the limitations merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using conventional computing technology and therefore amount to no more than “apply it” instructions under MPEP §2106.05(f). They do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful technological limitation beyond generic computer implementation.
Further, the recitation of additional limitations (e.g., via the stochastic, object-based modeling operation, using a first karst modeling operation and using a second karst modeling operation) merely limits the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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,…
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
As discussed above, the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely implement the abstract geological modeling process using conventional computer functionality. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm, specialized hardware configuration, unconventional processing technique, or any technological mechanism that changes how the computer operates. Rather, the computer as a tool to perform data reception, modeling, geometric manipulation, and output of results. Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more.
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’). Therefore, the reference demonstrates a well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field, such as applying a modeled karst feature to adjust drilling parameters in order to avoid operational challenges, corresponding to the limitation “adjusting, by applying the modeled first karst feature or the modeled second karst feature to the plurality of fracture properties and the fracture geometry of the fracture network, 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.”
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 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 (US 20190080032), 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 (US 20190204464), 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 (US 20120116740), 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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