DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Feb. 17th, 2026. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 15-16, 19 are objected to because of informalities
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
The claims are not rejected under § 103. The closest combination of prior art is the newly cited combination below, but this does not fairly teach the presently ordered combination of features in the claims, including in particular the limitations of “determine, by a machine-learning model for clustering data points, a plurality of clusters for the plurality of data points according to a heterogeneity index indicating a variability of rock properties in the geological formation”, wherein “the plurality of data points” is specifically part of a “point cloud” (see receiving limitation, Examiner noting that this is a particular term of art, see instant ¶ 21, see prior art cited below for additional clarification that this is a particular term of art, and the specification is consistent in context with how the prior art also uses the term), followed by: “generate a grid corresponding to the geological formation, the grid comprising a plurality of cells for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, each cluster of the plurality of clusters having a plurality of cell properties based on the heterogeneity index”.
See:
Cacace, Mauro, and Guido Blöcher. "MeshIt—a software for three dimensional volumetric meshing of complex faulted reservoirs." Environmental Earth Sciences 74.6 (2015): 5191-5209 - see the abstract and cf. 2, see the subsections on the “Pre-meshing stage” and the “Meshing stage”, see the various case studies, see the conclusion, wherein a feature is shown to be inherent and/or the meaning of a term explaining in Cacace 2015 (MPEP § 2131.01) (Examiner noting that Cacace 2015 describes this following publication as a realistic case study/application of Cacace 2015) in view of Cacace, Mauro, et al. (hereinafter Blocher) "Modelling of fractured carbonate reservoirs: outline of a novel technique via a case study from the Molasse Basin, southern Bavaria, Germany." Environmental earth sciences 70.8 (2013): 3585-3602 – see Blocher, p.3592 paragraph split between the columns and table 1 in subsection “Matrix and fault parameter settings”
For clarification on point clouds being a term of art, see Cacace, 2015, p. 5194 and cf. 3, then see the section “Surface reconstruction” ¶ 1 on p. 5206.
Taken in view of either:
Guerrero, Javier O., et al. "Automated Reconstruction of Fracture Networks." SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. URTEC, 2021. Abstract, then see subsections on “Workflow” and “Clustering Algorithm” (noting in particular: “Clustering is the process of grouping data points that have roughly similar properties together”) and subsection on “Convex Hull” followed by cf. 13. Also note this is working on “point clouds” in the cited sections.
OR Erharter, Georg H., Franz Tschuchnigg, and Gerhard Poscher. "Stochastic 3D modelling of discrete sediment bodies for geotechnical applications." Applied Computing and Geosciences 11 (2021): 100066. Abstract, cf. 4 including # 3-5 and accompanying descriptions in §§ 4.1-4.3. § 4.1 discusses the generation of a “point cloud”.
Taken in further view of
Rafiq, Aamir. Integrated Interpretation of Microseismic with Surface Seismic Data in a Tight Gas Reservoir, Central Alberta, Canada. MS thesis. University of Calgary (Canada), 2015. Section 4.2 and subsections, including in particular see fig. 4.5-4.7 and accompanying description, in particular 4.7. Examiner also noting in particular pp. 68-69, paragraph split between the paragraph.
Taken in further view of (Examiner noting that Cacace 2015 describes this following publication as a realistic case study/application of Cacace 2015) Hofmann, Hannes, et al. "Potential for enhanced geothermal systems in low permeability limestones–stimulation strategies for the Western Malm karst (Bavaria)." Geothermics 51 (2014): 351-367. Abstract. § 3 incl. the paragraph between pp. 358-359, and subsections of § 4, and the results section and subsection (e.g. last paragraph of § 5.1), also § 7 including second to last paragraph.
Should further clarification on point cloud being a particular term of art, also see pertinent prior art of record cited below.
This action is final
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 Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, for the clustering, see example 48, claim 2, limitation (d), as it is a mental process, see rejection below for additional clarification on this. With respect to the controlling, see rejection below for how this newly added limitation is considered under § 101.
Examiner’s suggestion is also provided below to address this rejection.
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn in view of amendments and supporting remarks incl.: “But, there is no suggestion of receiving a grid-less point cloud model or using machine learning to cluster such data for the purposes of defining the grid structure itself” as well as “The "earth model" in Arora is a gridded structure, not a grid-less point cloud (See Arora para. [0013]).”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 15-16, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims recite: “the grid usable for executing a flow simulation at the graphical user interface” – the ability to use it for this is not a positive assertation/requirement, but rather only an intended result. MPEP § 2111.04(I): “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure… However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).”
However, the newly amended “control…” limitation now requires this to be performed by antecedent basis. Examiner suggests amending to ensure express clarity, e.g. “output the grid…; executing a flow simulation, using the grid, at the graphical user interface”
Dependent claim 3, and any parallels of claim 3, recite a similar limitation of “usable” but do not have a later act requiring the execution to be performed. These dependent claims are interpreted as having optional, not required limitations at that “usable…” feature. Should it be intended that these are required, see MPEP § 2111: “Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984);…”
Independent claims, and the dependent claims in their preambles, recite “a memory that includes instructions executable by the processor for causing the processor to:” – however, this recitation does not actually require any of these steps to be executed. Rather, only that the instructions can be executed to perform these steps. Examiner suggests amending to a positive requirement, and interprets that these instructions are actually required to be executed.
The claims have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues:
Independent claims recite the receiving limitation recites “point cloud” but then recites “the… cloud point” – Examiner suggests being consistent with order of modifying terms and the element that they modify
Independent claims recite “a plurality of data points” then “clustering data points, a plurality of clusters for the plurality of data points…” – the “clustering data points” does not expressly referring back to the plurality of data points, wherein the later recitation in the claim makes clear it is clustering the plurality of data points of the point cloud
Independent claims: “determine a plurality of outlines, each cluster in the plurality of clusters being associated with an outline of the plurality of outlines;” – the transition phrase is missing, e.g. “determine a plurality of outlines, wherein each cluster…being associated with an outline…”
Claim 4, and parallels to it, recite: “determine a first heterogeneity parameter of the heterogeneity index for a first cluster of the plurality of clusters corresponds to a first number of cells and a first cell size for the first cluster; and” – Examiner suggests more clarity, e.g. “determine a first heterogeneity parameter of the heterogeneity index for a first cluster of the plurality of clusters, wherein the first heterogeneity parameter corresponds to a first number of cells and a first cell size for the first cluster; and”
Similar objection for the second limitation in this dependent claim
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims (claim 1 as representative) recite:
control a set of parameters of a wellbore operation for the geological formation based on fluid flow determined from the flow simulation
See ¶¶ 14, 17, and 28. The specification does not sufficiently describe that “a set of parameters” are controlled. E.g. ¶ 28: “For example, the computing device 140 can transmit, via the antenna 228, instructions for controlling the wellbore drilling operation.”
Examiner suggests amending the claims to more expressly reflect what is recited in the specification.
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 is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to expressly reflect and require the following subject matter in ¶ 13: “Determining the cell properties based on the heterogeneity index values can decrease a number of cells involved in adequately simulating the geological formation in the flow simulation. Adequate simulation of the geological formation can decrease a runtime of the flow simulation, which can prevent unnecessary uses of computing resources and network bandwidth. Additionally or alternatively, determining the cell properties of the grid based on the outlines of the clusters can enable property modeling prior to a runtime of the simulation” as to reflect an improvement to technology at prong 2. Examiner suggests seeing the claims in Ex parte Desjardin’s for how it expressly recited the asserted improvement in the specification, and thus required it.
Step 1
Claim 8 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 16 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 8 and 16, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept. Independent claims recite a mental process, some of the dependent claims add a math concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
determine, by a machine-learning model for clustering data points, a plurality of clusters for the plurality of data points according to a heterogeneity index indicating a variability of rock properties in the geological formation; - a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. Akin to the clustering in example 48, claim 2, limitation (d), at prong 1. See ¶ 37. With respect to doing this with a point cloud, its akin to limiting the mental process to a particular type of data, which is generally linking to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and MPEP § 2106.05(f) for Intellectual Ventures.
To clarify, a person is readily able to look at a plurality of data points, e.g. on a chart, and mentally observe clusters of the data points.
determine a plurality of outlines, each cluster in the plurality of clusters being associated with an outline of the plurality of outlines; - a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. See ¶ 38. A person is readily able to continue the mental evaluation of the data points, e.g. tracing out outlines of each of the clusters of data points on the chart. See ¶ 14 as well, which merely describes the use of a generic algorithm to accomplish this desired result, and this algorithm is expressly not even required by this claim (note dependent claim 6, and see § 112(d)).
generate a grid corresponding to the geological formation, the grid comprising a plurality of cells for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, each cluster of the plurality of clusters having a plurality of cell properties based on the heterogeneity index; - a mental process, one wherein graphing paper would readily be helpful, e.g. translucent graphing paper to overlay on top of the above discussed chart, so as to be a physical aid to a person tracing out a grid for each cluster. To the side of the grid, a person is readily able to tabulate a listing of cells/cell clusters, and their corresponding properties, akin to a person drawing a map with a latitude/longitude grid, wherein for clusters/groups in the map, e.g. associated with specific regions, they tabulate properties for those regions, e.g. median income, average altitude about sea level, etc.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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”:
Preambles of the CRM and system claim, and the processor of claim 8
The controlling step is recited with such generality that it amounts to no more then the mere instructions to “apply it” as it has no restriction on what actions are to be effectuated (contrast with example 45, claims 2 and 4), nor what particular machinery this is to control, nor is there an asserted improvement to the wellbore operation itself by being controlled. See ¶ 13 as discussed above to clarify, as well as ¶¶ 1, 17, 28.
The execution of the flow simulation is also considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction on how this is to be executed. Examiner suggests adopting the above Examiner’s suggestion to recite the how and reflect the improvement asserted in the specification, as it is improper to import limitation from the specification which have no express basis in the claims, e.g. see In re Prater in MPEP § 2111.
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
The “point cloud” is akin to limiting to a particular type of data/particular technological environment. See Intellectual Ventures in MPEP § 2106.05 (f and h).
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The receiving step – mere data gathering
The outputting step – mere data outputting/displaying
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “…Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception…Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon").”
As a point of clarity, RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) as well as MPEP § 2106.04(I): “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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”:
Preambles of the CRM and system claim, and the processor of claim 8
The controlling step is recited with such generality that it amounts to no more then the mere instructions to “apply it” as it has no restriction on what actions are to be effectuated (contrast with example 45, claims 2 and 4), nor what particular machinery this is to control, nor is there an asserted improvement to the wellbore operation itself by being controlled. See ¶ 13 as discussed above to clarify, as well as ¶¶ 1, 17, 28.
The execution of the flow simulation is also considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction on how this is to be executed. Examiner suggests adopting the above Examiner’s suggestion to recite the how and reflect the improvement asserted in the specification, as it is improper to import limitation from the specification which have no express basis in the claims, e.g. see In re Prater in MPEP § 2111.
The recitation of a GUI is similarly considered as mere instructions to do it on a computer/in a computer environment, given the generality recited of this GUI
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
The “point cloud” is akin to limiting to a particular type of data/particular technological environment. See Intellectual Ventures in MPEP § 2106.05 (f and h).
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The receiving step – mere data gathering
The outputting step – mere data outputting/displaying
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
The receiving step - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
The data outputting step is akin to “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well as example 46, claim 1, for its displaying limitation at 2B.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 is further limiting the abstract idea
Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by reciting additional mental steps. Examiner notes that the claims and specification convey no particularity to the objective function, i.e. it is readily a simple mental scoring rubric, e.g. a person mentally observes results of the flow simulation, and mentally judges/evaluates a score for it, and based on said score mentally adjusts/updates the grid/grid properties, with the outputting rejected under a similar rationale as the outputting in claim 1 above (Examiner noting that this claim does not even require the execution of the flow simulation, merely that it may be used – MPEP § 2111.04(I)). See ¶¶ 14 and 26, which convey it is merely comparing two values for the objective function, which is readily a mental process.
Claim 4 – further limiting the mental process by adding additional mental steps
Claim 5 – a listing of a litany of generic algorithms that may be used to perform the abstract idea as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer. Example 48, claim 2, limitation (d), also see example 48, claim 3, limitation(c), for “(c) clustering the embeddings using a k-means clustering algorithm” which at prong 1“Step (c) requires clustering the embeddings by a k-means clustering algorithm, which is a mathematical calculation” - and claim 5 recites a similar scope, thus is also rejected under a similar rationale.
Claim 6 rejected under a similar rationale as claim 5, as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
Claim 7 – further limiting the mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
Remaining parallel dependent claims rejected under similar rationales as their representative claims above.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frank et al. US 10,303,711. Abstract, col. 9-13.
Luneburg et al. US 2015/0234091. Cf. 3 and accompanying description.
Apró, Mihály. "Spatial uncertainty quantification of siliciclastic reservoirs, using the distance kernel method." Central European Geology 61.2 (2018): 109-117. Abstract, then see section on clustering starting on p. 112.
Grasmueck, M., and D. Viggiano. "PondView: Intuitive and Efficient Visualization of 3D GPR Data." 2018 17th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). IEEE, 2018. § II.A
He, Kang, Ming-Tao Jia, and Chen Mei-Fang. "Entropy evaluation method for sandstone uranium reservoir characteristics based on convex hull search." IEEE Access 8 (2020): 46307-46323. Abstract and p. 46310.
Kashefi, Ali, and Tapan Mukerji. "Point-cloud deep learning of porous media for permeability prediction." Physics of Fluids 33.9 (2021). Abstract and p. 33.
Liu, Xing, et al. "An enhanced RANSAC method for complex hydraulic network characterization based on microseismic data." ARMA International Discrete Fracture Network Engineering Conference. ARMA, 2018. Abstract and §§ 2.1-2.3
Miola, Marianna, et al. "3D Modeling and Integration of Heterogeneous Geo-data." STAG. 2021. Abstract, and p. 40 col. 1. Also see §§ 4-4.3
Miola, Marianna, et al. "A computational approach for 3D modeling and integration of heterogeneous geo-data." Computers & Graphics 105 (2022): 105-118. Abstract, pp. 106-108
Mosser, Lukas J. "Mapping geo-cellular models to unstructured simulation grids." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?. SPE, 2013. Abstract, pp. 2 and 5-6.
Seifollahi, Sattar, et al. "A spatial clustering approach for stochastic fracture network modelling." Rock mechanics and rock engineering 47.4 (2014): 1225-1235. Abstract and § 4.
Strebelle, S. "Revolutionizing Subsurface Property Modeling: Advantages of Grid-Less Geomodeling." Fifth EAGE Conference on Petroleum Geostatistics. Vol. 2023. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2023. See figure 2.
Tarchiani, C., et al. "Novel while-drilling workflow for reservoir structural prediction ahead of the bit." 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2017. Vol. 2017. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2017. See p. 2
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights