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 .
Responsive to communications filed 1/12/2024
Claims under examination 1-20 are pending in this application
Claims 1-20 are rejected
Claims 1, 2, and 13 are objected to
Priority
No claims for foreign or domestic priority made in Application data sheet filed on 8/22/2022. Application given priority date of 8/22/2022
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS forms filed on 8/22/2022 and 1/12/2024 were reviewed by examiner and taken into consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “123” in fig 1. has been used to designate in par 42 both “a sensor assembly” as well as “a processor assembly”. Examiner notes that while these may be intended to be the same device, it would promote clarity to explain as such in the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “900” in fig 9 has been used to designate both a “computational graph” in par 81 as well as a “network” in par 82. Examiner again notes that while these may be intended to be the same device, since the computational graph was given as an example of a network diagram, the specifications should be clearer since “950” is also referred to as “the network”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Abstract received on 08/22/2022 is 7 lines long with 95 words and does not contain any legal phraseology.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 14 refers to an ontological framework as (OF). Paragraph 101 also refers to the objective function as (OF) when discussing the misfit OF. While the use of OF as objective function is precluded by the term misfit, it will be beneficial for clarity to specific or change the acronym accordingly.
In paragraph 68, the specification states “muti-rate test points 368,” this was likely supposed to be “multi-rate test points (368).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,2 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “render statically accurate success failure decision,” was likely meant to be written as “render statistically accurate success failure decisions.” The examiner is interpreting the claim as “statistically accurate”
Claims 1 and 13 reference “as instructed by the decision information” in the final limitation of the claim without specifying that it is the decision information from the “updated knowledge graph.” Examiner recommends specifying where the decision information comes from for clarity. Examiner is interpreting the decision information as coming from the updated knowledge graph logic.
Claims 1 and 13 reference “the decision information from the updated knowledge graph.” It is unclear as to where the antecedent basis is coming from in “the decision information”, as the applicant likely is not referring to the earlier incomplete knowledge graph logic. Examiner recommends specifying that this is new updated decision information to provide clarity for what is being referred to. Examiner is interpreting this line to be “obtaining
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner would like to make note of how terms in the claims are interpreted with respect to the specification and as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Knowledge graph logic: Par 149:” the KG logic represents an exhaustive library or sequence of steps related to reservoir engineering tasks.”
Knowledge graph logic for failure/ success: “par: 149 The KG logic for failure, updated in Step 2016, may represent an exhaustive library or sequence of steps that lead to an increase (examiner note: or decrease for success) of a (global) misfit objective function.”
Completeness: Can be determined by many criteria, but is ultimately “ par 131: based on the ability to render a statistically accurate success/failure decision or prediction. “
Parameterization: Table 6 depicts parametrization. Parameterization is interpreted in light of specifications as well as the art as the tuning of parameters to help achieve a result. For example, in table 6, “fracture orientation” was parameterized into Variogram_Major, Variogram_minor, and Variogram_Vertical. This can be achieved by modifying weights, splitting up parameters, etc.
sensitivity analysis: A sensitivity analysis is done to determine how sensitive the model is to changes from certain input parameters. For example, in fig 23A it was shown through a sensitivity analysis that is it “par 138: matrix compressibility which affects the field pressure response the most”
stochastically sampled full parameter sets: Using a stochastic sampling technique to determine the set of parameters to be tested.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. Claim 1 recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
Claim 1 recites: "examining a knowledge graph logic associated with a reservoir simulation model for completeness”
As stated in the claim interpretation. An examination for completeness involves determining
whether or not a knowledge graph logic (which is a series of steps) has any missing steps that may lead to an inaccurate prediction by the knowledge graph logic. A knowledge graph may be presented in pen and paper alongside decision making such as in figures 22A – 22E of this application. For example par 166: “FIG. 22D shows an example of reasoning/decision making using sub-KGs. In the example(2230), geo&fracture model and a stratigraphic model provide multiple outputs. However, the outputs of the geo&fracture model are incomplete. The missing 3D permeability and 3D porosity are substituted using the corresponding outputs of the stratigraphic model.” This evaluation for completeness for a knowledge graph logic associated with a reservoir simulation model was done mentally with a pen and paper. Therefore this is an examination which can reasonably be performed in the mind by one ordinarily skilled in the art. This examination involves observing the KG logic and evaluating it for its completeness. “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Because the limitation pertains to an evaluation, it recites the abstract idea of a mental process.
making a determination, (an evaluation) based on the examination, that the knowledge graph logic is incomplete; (a mental process) based on the determination, generating an updated knowledge graph logic; obtaining the decision information from the updated knowledge graph;
As stated above, the determination that a knowledge graph logic is incomplete is the mental processes of observation and evaluation. Generating an updated knowledge graph logic is the process of modifying the steps of an existing knowledge graph logic. For example, “decrease variable x in step 1” may become “increase variable x in step 1.” This involves making a determination based on examination (an evaluation), making a decision (a judgement) on what the updated knowledge graph logic (sequence of steps) should be. “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Lastly, obtaining the decision information from the updated knowledge graph is the process of following a sequence of steps and utilizing logic to get an answer. This is the mental process of deduction, which is when someone evaluates a series of logical steps to reach a conclusion. This is a mental process pertaining to an evaluation.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claim 1 additionally recites wherein the knowledge graph logic comprises decision information that governs an execution of the reservoir simulation model;
As stated previously, the examination of a knowledge graph logic associated with a reservoir simulation model for completeness was found to be a mental process. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “ limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” One example given in the MPEP 2016.05(h) as merely indicating a field of use is “ Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.”
In this claim, limiting the abstract idea of examining a knowledge graph logic for completeness, by stating that wherein the knowledge graph logic comprises information that governs the execution of a reservoir simulation model, is merely indicating a field of use to apply a judicial exception, because it is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of reservoir modeling, and therefore does not apply the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 1 additionally recites executing the reservoir simulation model as instructed by the decision information.
As stated previously, the decision information is information gleaned via the mental process of deduction. The MPEP 2106.05(g) states that “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.“ With one example of insignificant extra-solution activity being “Cutting hair after first determining the hair style.” MPEP 2106.05(g).
Cutting hair after first determining hair style can be understood as executing the process of hair cutting as instructed by the hair style decision information. Executing the reservoir simulation model as instructed by the decision information is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity and does not meaningfully limit the claim as it is a process that is tangentially related to the rest of the claim which pertains to generating knowledge graph logic and does not purpose a significant limitation to that process. This limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO.
According to the MPEP 2106.05(g) “ the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” As stated, the insignificant extra-solution activity of “executing the reservoir simulation model as instructed by the decision information “ is by definition conventional, as the decision information is defined as “decision information that governs an execution of the reservoir simulation model.” Whereas it is obvious and well understood that decision information that governs an execution of a reservoir simulation model would be used to govern the execution of a simulation model.
Secondly, The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “ limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on claim 13 which recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium”: which is a manufacture.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
, wherein the examination of the knowledge graph logic for completeness is performed based on one selected from a group consisting of an ability to render statically accurate success failure decisions and an ability to render statistically accurate predictions, by the reservoir simulation model.
As stated under claim 1, the examination for completeness is a mental process. en.et al in “Knowledge Graph Completion: A Review” (Chen_2020) discusses information relating to knowledge graph completion. Chen_2020 states in page 16 col 2 par 2 “Commonly used knowledge graph completion task evaluation indicators include Hits@k, Mean Rank (MR), and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) .” Chen_2020 then outlines these methodologies as equations (12, 13, and 14) for example page 16 col 2 par 4: “Mean Reciprocal Rank scores the predicted triples based on whether they are true or not. If the first predicted triple is true, its score is 1, and the second true score is 1/2, and so on. When
the n-th triplet is established, it is scored 1/n, and the final MRR value is the sum of all the scores. The calculation formula is shown in Equation (14). “(examiner note: this is the ability to render statistically accurate predictions)
PNG
media_image1.png
89
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As outlined, this method for completeness performed based on one selected from a group consisting of an ability to render statically accurate success failure decisions and an ability to render statistically accurate prediction is adding a mathematic calculation to be performed as outlined to an existing mental process. Therefore this limitation further recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 2 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
wherein the knowledge graph logic comprises knowledge graph logic for success and knowledge graph logic for failure.
As stated under claim 1, the examination and determination for completeness/incompleteness, as well as the updating of the knowledge graph logic are all mental processes under observations and deductions. The knowledge graph logic for success is the list of steps that lead to a successful predication, while the knowledge graph logic for failure is the list of steps that led to an inaccurate prediction. As stated in claim 1, it is reasonable for one to follow a knowledge graph logic with a pen and paper to make deductions. It would also be reasonable for one in the art to draw two separate knowledge graph logic (series of steps) which led to success or failure. Therefore this limitation does not take claim 1 outside the realm of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 3 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
wherein the reservoir simulation model is one selected from a group consisting of a classifier model and a regression model.
A classifier and a regression model are simply mathematical models. As stated in claim 1, the recitation of “executing the reservoir simulation model as instructed by the decision information” was simply applying the mental process for its obvious use. The reservoir simulation model being a classifier or regression model does claim a more particular way to achieve an outcome, i.e.: a regression calculation will be applied; however, it is noted that a regression and classification model is simply the use of a mathematical equation to compute a value. Bobbitt in the article “How to Perform a Linear Regression by Hand (Bobbitt_2020) outlines how a regression model calculation can be performed with a pen and paper. Therefore, a linear regression can be easily calculated by hand to determine decision information based on the output. Because this limitation pertains to mathematic calculations that can easily be performed in the mind, the limitation does not take claim 1 outside the realm of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 4 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
executing, using a parameterization, the reservoir simulation model to reduce a misfit;
The reservoir simulation model under its broadest reasonable interpretation can include a regression model. Executing a regression model to reduce a misfit (delta between calculated and expected value) by using parameterization (modifying parameters and weights) is simply a recitation of math which can be performed with pen and paper. Therefore this claim pertains to an abstract idea.
and when the execution of the reservoir simulation model fails to result in a reduction of the misfit, updating the knowledge graph logic with knowledge graph logic for failure, based on the parameterization.
Updated a knowledge graph logic based on parameterization can include changing the weights of the regression model, which can be done with pen and paper. For instance, we can take the regression model done by hand as taught by Bobbitt_2020 page 3: “y=32.783 + 0.2001x” and change the weight to “y=32 + 0.3x” which effectively changes the logic. Updating the knowledge graph for failure means simply updating the graph with steps which led to the failure. Therefore this limitation pertains to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 5 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
wherein the parameterization is determined using a sensitivity analysis.
A sensitivity analysis involves a statistical method that observes how a change in one variable impacts the outcome of the model. For a model built on regression for example, this sensitivity analysis is a mathematical procedure (i.e.: changing variable x and observing change in output y). This is similar to what was discussed in claim 5. This claim limitation recites math which is an abstract idea and does not limit the scope of the claim beyond that abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 6 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
executing, using a parameterization, the reservoir simulation model to reduce a misfit;
If the reservoir simulation model includes a regression or classification model, then the usage of that model to reduce a misfit using a parametrization is simply a mathematical calculation. For instance, modifying parameter x results in predicted value y. The misfit can be interpreted as the delta between y and real-world historic data. Modifying parameter x to reduce the delta is the execution of the reservoir simulation model to reduce a misfit. For the example of Bobbitt_2020, this would be plugging in a test value into the equation in page 3: y = 32.784 + 0.2001x (which describes a relationship between height and weight) and drawing a comparison to a real individual’s height and weight, with the purpose of minimizing that difference. This process as described is the mathematical recitation of equation finding to reduce a delta y, which is an abstract math recitation and does not limit the scope of the claim beyond an abstract idea.
and when the execution of the reservoir simulation model results in a reduction of the misfit, updating the knowledge graph logic with knowledge graph logic for success, based on the parameterization.
As stated earlier in claim 5, updating a knowledge graph logic can be simply changing the weights of the regression model, which can be done with pen and paper. Updating a knowledge graph logic for success is changing the steps the reservoir model takes to produce a successful result. Both these processes as described are mental processes as stated earlier, and therefore do not limit the scope of the claim beyond a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 7 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
performing simulation runs of the reservoir simulation model using stochastically sampled full parameter sets of the reservoir simulation model to identify a highest-ranked full parameter set of the reservoir simulation model; and
A simulation run of the reservoir model for a regression model can be as simple as plugging in values into an equation to produce a result, which is a mathematic calculation and is a mental process as shown by Bobbit_2020. Stochastically sampled parameter sets are parameter sets which are achieved through a statistical methods which is also a mathematical process. Identifying a highest ranked parameter set is done by plugging in the different parameter sets into the regression model to determine which set results in the greatest reduction in a misfit. As stated previously, this calculation is a recitation of math.
updating the knowledge graph logic with knowledge graph logic for success, based on the simulation runs.
As stated previously in claim 7 and 17, updating a knowledge graph logic for success is the mental process of either changing weights or logical steps in a knowledge graph, which is a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 8 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
wherein updating the knowledge graph logic based on the simulation runs comprises: aggregating model parameters identified with the highest impact on model dynamic response;
As stated in claim 8, performing simulation runs of the reservoir simulation model using stochastically sampled full parameter sets of the reservoir simulation model to identify a highest-ranked full parameter set of the reservoir simulation model was found to be a mental process. Similarly, aggregating parameters identified with the highest impact on model dynamic response is using the sensitivity analysis to isolate parameters and test how modifying them influences the model’s response. Since the model encompasses a regression model, which can be calculated by hand, this is a mathematic response to a change in the variable. As stated in claim 6, this is changing variable x and observing change in output y, and then selecting from different variables which produced the greatest delta y. This is a mathematic recitation.
and performing a refinement simulation run of the reservoir simulation model for the model parameters with the highest impact.
A refinement simulation run of the model for the parameters with the highest impact is simply executing the model with the newly aggregated parameters. This is likely done to fine tune the parameters further to produce a more idealized model that reduces the misfit by isolating the most influential parameters. As stated in claims 6 and 7, executing the model, whether it be to reduce a misfit or to do a sensitivity analysis, encompasses a mathematical recitation.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 9 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
wherein updating the knowledge graph logic based on the simulation runs further comprises:
confirming that the misfit is reduced.
A confirmation that the misfit is reduced is a comparison between two different delta y’s, where the delta y is calculated by some mathematical method between the observed y and calculated y. (i.e.: difference of squares, or absolute value of difference). This is a mathematic recitation and observation which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 10 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on claim 13 which recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium”: which is a manufacture.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
The method of claim 1, wherein the reservoir simulation model is for one selected from a group consisting of a history matching task and a field development planning task.
A history matching task is attempting to match the simulation model to field production data. This is done by modifying the simulation parameters to reduce a misfit. As described in claim 1 as well as the claims above, executing the simulation model in general, or to reduce a misfit, is encompassed by a regression calculation which can be done by hand with a piece of paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 11 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on Claim 1 which recites “A method for reservoir simulation, the method comprising:” which is a process.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on claim 13 which recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium”: which is a manufacture.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
Claim 12 depends on claim which recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
The method of claim 1, further comprising updating one selected from a group consisting of drilling parameters and production parameters based on a result of executing the reservoir simulation model.
Updating the simulation model to change parameters is the execution of the simulation model, for example to reduce a misfit. As discussed under “sensitivity analysis” in claim 6, the modification of parameters to cause a change in the model is the mathematical process of changing parameter x to decrease a delta y, where delta y represents the difference between a target y value and a calculated y value. This is the mathematical process of modifying parameters. The examiner believes that the recitation of updating drilling parameters or production parameters is a mere instruction to apply an exception. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states “ Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’.” Because the claim states “updating” without restriction of how the updating is accomplished, the claim limitation is merely “apply it” instructions to use the judicial exception of mathematics for modifying parameters to these parameters.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO.
As stated, the use of “apply it” instructions does not provide significantly more.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 12 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. Claim 13 recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions executed by one or more processors, the plurality of machine-readable instructions causing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: which is a manufacture.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
Claim 13 recites: "examining a knowledge graph logic associated with a reservoir simulation model for completeness”
As stated in the claim interpretation. An examination for completeness involves determining
whether or not a knowledge graph logic (which is a series of steps) has any missing steps that may lead to an inaccurate prediction by the knowledge graph logic. A knowledge graph may be presented in pen and paper alongside decision making such as in figures 22A – 22E of this application. For example par 166: “FIG. 22D shows an example of reasoning/decision making using sub-KGs. In the example(2230), geo&fracture model and a stratigraphic model provide multiple outputs. However, the outputs of the geo&fracture model are incomplete. The missing 3D permeability and 3D porosity are substituted using the corresponding outputs of the stratigraphic model.” This evaluation for completeness for a knowledge graph logic associated with a reservoir simulation model was done mentally with a pen and paper. Therefore this is an examination which can reasonably be performed in the mind by one ordinarily skilled in the art. This examination involves observing the KG logic and evaluating it for its completeness. “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Because the limitation pertains to an evaluation, it recites the abstract idea of a mental process.
making a determination, (an evaluation) based on the examination, that the knowledge graph logic is incomplete; (a mental process) based on the determination, generating an updated knowledge graph logic; obtaining the decision information from the updated knowledge graph;
As stated above, the determination that a knowledge graph logic is incomplete is the mental processes of observation and evaluation. Generating an updated knowledge graph logic is the process of modifying the steps of an existing knowledge graph logic. For example, “decrease variable x in step 1” may become “increase variable x in step 1.” This involves making a determination based on examination (an evaluation), making a decision (a judgement) on what the updated knowledge graph logic (sequence of steps) should be. “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Lastly, obtaining the decision information from the updated knowledge graph is the process of following a sequence of steps and utilizing logic to get an answer. This is the mental process of deduction, which is when someone evaluates a series of logical steps to reach a conclusion. This is a mental process pertaining to an evaluation.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claim 13 additionally recites wherein the knowledge graph logic comprises decision information that governs an execution of the reservoir simulation model;
As stated previously, the examination of a knowledge graph logic associated with a reservoir simulation model for completeness was found to be a mental process. The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “ limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” One example given in the MPEP 2016.05(h) as merely indicating a field of use is “ Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.”
In this claim, limiting the abstract idea of examining a knowledge graph logic for completeness, by stating that wherein the knowledge graph logic comprises information that governs the execution of a reservoir simulation model, is merely indicating a field of use to apply a judicial exception, because it is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of reservoir modeling, and therefore does not apply the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 13 additionally recites executing the reservoir simulation model as instructed by the decision information.
As stated previously, the decision information is information gleaned via the mental process of deduction. The MPEP 2106.05(g) states that “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.“ With one example of insignificant extra-solution activity being “Cutting hair after first determining the hair style.” MPEP 2106.05(g).
Cutting hair after first determining hair style can be understood as executing the process of hair cutting as instructed by the hair style decision information. Executing the reservoir simulation model as instructed by the decision information is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity and does not meaningfully limit the claim as it is a process that is tangentially related to the rest of the claim which pertains to generating knowledge graph logic and does not purpose a significant limitation to that process. This limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 additional recites A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions executed by one or more processors, the plurality of machine-readable instructions causing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
This preamble states that the judicial exception is being performed by non-transitory machine-readable mediums executed by computer processors. “simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ MPEP 2106.05f(2). Therefore this limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO.
According to the MPEP 2106.05(g) “ the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” As stated, the insignificant extra-solution activity of “executing the reservoir simulation model as instructed by the decision information “ is by definition conventional, as the decision information is defined as “decision information that governs an execution of the reservoir simulation model.” Whereas it is obvious and well understood that decision information that governs an execution of a reservoir simulation model would be used to govern the execution of a simulation model.
Secondly, The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “ limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Lastly, simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore the additional elements in the claim do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 13 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14:
, wherein the examination of the knowledge graph logic for completeness is performed based on one selected from a group consisting of an ability to render statically accurate success failure decisions and an ability to render statistically accurate predictions, by the reservoir simulation model.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on claim 13 which recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium”: which is a manufacture.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
As stated under 13, the examination for completeness is a mental process. en.et al in “Knowledge Graph Completion: A Review” (Chen_2020) discusses information relating to knowledge graph completion. Chen_2020 states in page 16 col 2 par 2 “Commonly used knowledge graph completion task evaluation indicators include Hits@k, Mean Rank (MR), and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) .” Chen_2020 then outlines these methodologies as equations (12, 13, and 14) for example page 16 col 2 par 4: “Mean Reciprocal Rank scores the predicted triples based on whether they are true or not. If the first predicted triple is true, its score is 1, and the second true score is 1/2, and so on. When
the n-th triplet is established, it is scored 1/n, and the final MRR value is the sum of all the scores. The calculation formula is shown in Equation (14). “(examiner note: this is the ability to render statistically accurate predictions)
PNG
media_image1.png
89
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As outlined, this method for completeness performed based on one selected from a group consisting of an ability to render statically accurate success failure decisions and an ability to render statistically accurate prediction is adding a mathematic calculation to be performed as outlined to an existing mental process. Therefore this limitation further recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 14 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on claim 13 which recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium”: which is a manufacture.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
executing, using a parameterization, the reservoir simulation model to reduce a misfit;
The reservoir simulation model under its broadest reasonable interpretation can include a regression model. Executing a regression model to reduce a misfit (delta between calculated and expected value) by using parameterization (modifying parameters and weights) is simply a recitation of math which can be performed with pen and paper. Therefore this claim pertains to an abstract idea.
and when the execution of the reservoir simulation model fails to result in a reduction of the misfit, updating the knowledge graph logic with knowledge graph logic for failure, based on the parameterization.
Updated a knowledge graph logic based on parameterization can include changing the weights of the regression model, which can be done with pen and paper. For instance, we can take the regression model done by hand as taught by Bobbitt_2020 page 3: “y=32.783 + 0.2001x” and change the weight to “y=32 + 0.3x” which effectively changes the logic. Updating the knowledge graph for failure means simply updating the graph with steps which led to the failure. Therefore this limitation pertains to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. This limitation does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Based off of the above facts the office concludes that claim 15 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. This claim depends on claim 13 which recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium”: which is a manufacture.
Step 2:
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?": YES.
wherein the parameterization is determined using a sensitivity analysis.
A sensitivity analysis involves a statistical method that observes how a change in one variable impacts the outcome of the model. For a model built on regression for example, this sensitivity analysis is a mathematical procedure (i.e.: changing variable x and observing chang