DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 06/21/2022.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully
consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed
invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed
by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the
claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the
invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the
specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology
familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can
be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited
references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the
applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of
compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2022 and 06/09/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 16, the claims recite “dividing the sorted plurality of discovered volumes into quintiles”. This limitation is unclear. Applicant fails to clearly disclose what constitutes a “quintile”, i.e. what defines or determines which discovered volumes are divided into each quintile? Applicant’s Table 5 disclosure [Spec. P.0021] doesn’t clarify why each discovered volume is placed (or sorted) into its respective “quintile”. Referring to dependent claims and the entirety of Applicant’s Specification disclosure provide no further clarification. Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quintile (Accessed 24 Sep. 2025), “Quintile” is defined as “any of the four values that divide the items of a frequency distribution into five classes with each containing one fifth of the total population, also : any one of the five classes”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the claim limitations to mean the discovered volumes are divided into 5 groups. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 7, 9, 14, and 20, the claims recite “(100/n+1)/100”, yet the claims are directed towards the calculation of a probability (i.e. a percentage). It is unclear how this formula results in a percentage (i.e. probability). Referring to Specification [P.0022], Applicant discloses the formula as “(100/(n+1))/100”. This formula does result in a percentage (i.e. probability). For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets “(100/(n+1))/100” as the formula to be used. The claims also recite “i * (100/n+1)/100”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this formula to be “i * (100/(n+1))/100”. Clarification is required.
The dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 21, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 10-15 are directed to a computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a manufacture.
Claims 16-21 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (claim 1):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of discovered volumes associated with a respective plurality of dates;
sorting the plurality of discovered volumes by the respective plurality of dates; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. The act of sorting (i.e. organizing and manipulating) discovered volumes (i.e. data/information) by dates is considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. The act of sorting information based on dates (i.e. evaluate and judge) is considered mental processes since a person can reasonably perform the act with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
dividing the sorted plurality of discovered volumes into quintiles, where each quintile includes a sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes, wherein each quintile is sorted by a size of the respective subset of the plurality of discovered volumes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The acts of dividing and sorting information/data is considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. organizing information) with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
assigning a probability to each discovered volume of the respective subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of each quintile; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The act of assigning a probability is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. assigning probabilities) with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
obtaining a plurality of prospect scenarios associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of prospect scenarios associated with a sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes, wherein each of the plurality of prospect scenarios is sorted by a size of the respective plurality of prospect volumes;
assigning a probability to each of the prospect volume of the sorted respectively plurality of prospect volumes of each of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The act of assigning a probability is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. assigning probabilities) with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
plotting, on a lognormal scale versus probability, the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of a selected quintile and the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes for each of the plurality of prospect scenarios;
classifying the plurality of prospect scenarios into a first class, a second class, or a third class based on a comparison with the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The act of classifying the prospective scenarios is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. classify (i.e. organize) prospective scenarios) with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
and selecting, based on the classification, a prospect scenario of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, “to select” implies a mental process since it requires evaluation and opinion.)
determining the future field size distribution (FFSD) for the geologic area of
interest by combining the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes of the selected prospect scenario with the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of the selected quintile. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). The act of determining the FFSD by combining data/information (i.e. respective volumes) is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical concepts. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the FFSD by combining recited volumes with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (claim 1):
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of discovered volumes associated with a respective plurality of dates; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). 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. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. For instance, “obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes” is interpreted as pre-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering).)
obtaining a plurality of prospect scenarios associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of prospect scenarios associated with a sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes, wherein each of the plurality of prospect scenarios is sorted by a size of the respective plurality of prospect volumes; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). 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. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. For instance, “obtaining a plurality of prospective scenarios” is interpreted as pre-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering).)
plotting, on a lognormal scale versus probability, the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of a selected quintile and the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes for each of the plurality of prospect scenarios;
and selecting, based on the classification, a prospect scenario of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). 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. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. For instance, “plotting” the previously sorted information/data is interpreted as post-solution activity (i.e. data outputting).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (claim 1):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (pre/post-solution activity).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), 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, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (claim 10):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mathematical concepts and/or mental processes performed on a generic computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 10, the claim recites the limitations of:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable code stored thereon for hydrocarbon resource exploration assessment, the executable code comprising a set of instructions that causes a processor to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of discovered volumes associated with a respective plurality of dates;
sorting the plurality of discovered volumes by the respective plurality of dates; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. The act of sorting (i.e. organizing and manipulating) discovered volumes (i.e. data/information) by dates is considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. The act of sorting information based on dates (i.e. evaluate and judge) is considered mental processes since a person can reasonably perform the act with or without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer.)
dividing the sorted plurality of discovered volumes into quintiles, where each quintile includes a sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes, wherein each quintile is sorted by a size of the respective subset of the plurality of discovered volumes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The acts of dividing and sorting information/data is considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. organizing information) with or without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer.)
assigning a probability to each discovered volume of the respective subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of each quintile; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The act of assigning a probability is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. assigning probabilities) with or without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer.)
obtaining a plurality of prospect scenarios associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of prospect scenarios associated with a sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes, wherein each of the plurality of prospect scenarios is sorted by a size of the respective plurality of prospect volumes;
assigning a probability to each of the prospect volume of the sorted respectively plurality of prospect volumes of each of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The act of assigning a probability is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. assigning probabilities) with or without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer.)
plotting, on a lognormal scale versus probability, the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of a selected quintile and the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes for each of the plurality of prospect scenarios;
classifying the plurality of prospect scenarios into a first class, a second class, or a third class based on a comparison with the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The act of classifying the prospective scenarios is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. classify (i.e. organize) prospective scenarios) with or without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer.)
and selecting, based on the classification, a prospect scenario of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, “to select” implies a mental process since it requires evaluation and opinion. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer.)
determining the future field size distribution (FFSD) for the geologic area of interest by combining the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes of the selected prospect scenario with the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of the selected quintile. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). The act of determining the FFSD by combining data/information (i.e. respective volumes) is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical concepts. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the FFSD by combining recited volumes with or without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (claim 10):
As per independent claim 10, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception and/or insignificant extra solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable code stored thereon for hydrocarbon resource exploration assessment, the executable code comprising a set of instructions that causes a processor to perform operations comprising: (The additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the claim is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes) or other exception on a computer.)
obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of discovered volumes associated with a respective plurality of dates; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). 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. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. For instance, “obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes” is interpreted as pre-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering).)
obtaining a plurality of prospect scenarios associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of prospect scenarios associated with a sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes, wherein each of the plurality of prospect scenarios is sorted by a size of the respective plurality of prospect volumes; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). 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. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. For instance, “obtaining a plurality of prospective scenarios” is interpreted as pre-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering).)
plotting, on a lognormal scale versus probability, the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of a selected quintile and the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes for each of the plurality of prospect scenarios;
and selecting, based on the classification, a prospect scenario of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). 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. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. For instance, “plotting” the previously sorted information/data is interpreted as post-solution activity (i.e. data outputting).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (claim 10):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (pre/post-solution activity).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), 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, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 16 is directed to substantially the same subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 2 further recites, comprising classifying the determined future field size distribution (FFSD) based on the classification of the selected prospect scenario. The additional element further recites Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) since a person can reasonably evaluate prospective scenario classifications and then classify the FFSD, with or without the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, wherein determining the future field size distribution (FFSD) for the geologic area of interest comprises determining the future field size distribution (FFSD) for an undiscovered hydrocarbon resource assessment. The additional element further recites Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). The act of determining the FFSD is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical concepts. The additional element is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the FFSD, with or without the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites, comprising selecting a drilling target or location in the area of interest based on the determined future field size distribution (FFSD). The additional element further recites Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, “to select” implies a mental process since it requires evaluation and opinion. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 does not recite an abstract idea.
Claim 6 further recites, classifying the plurality of prospect scenarios into a first class, a second class, or a third class based on a comparison with the graphed subset of the plurality of discovered volumes comprises classifying one of plurality of prospect scenarios into the first class if the respective plurality of prospect volumes is less than or equal to 20 % of the graphed subset of the plurality of discovered volumes. The additional elements further recite Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. The act of classifying the prospective scenarios is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The additional elements are also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. classify (i.e. organize) prospective scenarios) with or without the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites, wherein assigning a probability to each discovered volume of each quintile comprises: calculating a probability of the first discovered volume of a quintile as (100/n+1)/100, where n is the number of volumes in the quintile; and calculating a probability of each additional discovered volume of the quintile as i * (100/n+1)/100, where i is the number of the additional discovered volume. The additional elements further recite Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping and a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. The additional elements are also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. calculating and assigning probabilities) with or without the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 further recites, wherein determining the future field size distribution (FFSD) for the geologic area of interest by combining the selected prospect scenario with the subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of the selected quintile comprises: combining the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes of the selected prospect scenario with the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of the selected quintile to create a plurality of merged volumes; (The additional element further recites Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). The act of determining the FFSD by combining data/information (i.e. respective volumes) is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical concepts. The limitation is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the FFSD by combining recited volumes with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
sorting the plurality of merged volumes from largest to smallest; (The additional element further recites Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). The act of sorting (i.e. organizing and manipulating) merged volumes (i.e. data/information) is considered mathematical relationships. The additional element is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the act with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
assigning a probability to each volume of the plurality of merged volumes; (The additional element further recites Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A). The act of assigning a probability is interpreted as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and therefore considered mathematical relationships. The additional element is also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. assigning probabilities) with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
and plotting, in lognormal values, the sorted plurality of merged volumes versus assigned probability. (“The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). 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. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. For instance, “plotting” the previously sorted information/data is interpreted as post-solution activity (i.e. data outputting).)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9, the method of claim 8, further recites wherein assigning a probability to each discovered volume of each quintile comprises: calculating a probability of the first discovered volume of a quintile as (100/n+1)/100, where n is the number of volumes in the group; and calculating a probability of each additional discovered volume of the quintile as i * (100/n+1)/100, where i is the number of the additional discovered volume. The additional elements further recite Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping and a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. The additional elements are also directed towards Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform the limitation (i.e. calculating and assigning probabilities) with or without the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 12 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 21 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quirk, D. G., M. J. Howe, and S. G. Archer. "A Combined Deterministic‐Probabilistic Method Of Estimating Undiscovered Hydrocarbon Resources." Journal of Petroleum Geology 40.3 (2017): 217-248. (hereinafter referred to as “Quirk”), in view of Eustance, Nick, and Steve Newman. "A simple and practical method for estimating undiscovered hydrocarbons for a specified timeframe." The APPEA Journal 55.2 (2015): 449-449 (hereinafter referred to as “Eustance”), in view of Martinelli, Gabriele , Eidsvik, Jo , Hokstad, Ketil , and Ragnar Hauge. "Strategies for Petroleum Exploration on the Basis of Bayesian Networks: A Case Study." SPE J. 19 (2014): 564–575 (hereinafter referred to as “Martinelli”).
Regarding claim 1, Quirk discloses A method for determining a future field size distribution of a geologic area of interest, the method comprising: (“Oil and gas companies use play analysis to define regions and intervals in sedimentary basins with exploration potential. A useful way of evaluating the latter is to calculate what resource remains yet-to-find (“YTF”) within specific plays. Part of the calculation
may also include an estimate of the economic YTF resource: the potential reserves distributed in future discoveries which meet certain commercial criteria such as minimum economic field size (MEFS).” Quirk [Pg.217 Intro.])
obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of discovered volumes associated with a respective plurality of dates;
sorting the plurality of discovered volumes by the respective plurality of dates;
dividing the sorted plurality of discovered volumes into quintiles, where each quintile includes a sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes, wherein each quintile is sorted by a size of the respective subset of the plurality of discovered volumes;
assigning a probability to each discovered volume of the respective subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of each quintile; (“(i) arrange the discoveries in order of recoverable resource size, (ii) assign reverse cumulative probabilities to the data based on fractile percentages of their size ranking” Quirk [Pg.224 Col.1 Ln.4-7])
obtaining a plurality of prospect scenarios associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of prospect scenarios associated with a sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes, (“It is therefore important to consider a spectrum of different scenarios when compiling an uncertainty range in the number of prospects and their potential sizes (i.e. volumes).” Quirk [Pg.236 Col.1 Ln.3-6])
wherein each of the plurality of prospect scenarios is sorted by a size of the respective plurality of prospect volumes; (“arrange the discoveries (i.e. scenarios) in order of recoverable resource size” Quirk [Pg.224 Col.1 Ln.4-5])
assigning a probability to each of the prospect volume of the sorted respectively plurality of prospect volumes of each of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (“assign reverse cumulative probabilities to the data based on fractile percentages of their size ranking” Quirk [Pg.224 Col.1 Ln.6-7)
plotting, on a lognormal scale versus probability, the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of a selected quintile and the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes for each of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (“(D) The successful YTF (i.e. yet-to-find recoverable resource) scenario plotted as a predicted discovery size distribution. (E) High-, mid- and low-case YTF scenarios plotted as discovery probability trends. Inset table shows a YTF range calculated by assuming the mid-case and high-case scenarios represent P50 and P10 values, respectively, in a lognormal distribution.” Quirk [Pg.238-239]. See (D)(E) below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
942
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
classifying the plurality of prospect scenarios into a first class, a second class, or a third class based on a comparison with the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes; (“a mid case, calculated from the exploration team’s best estimate of the number of future discoveries plus the mean recoverable resource size of a favoured prospect chosen as the largest potential discovery; a high case scenario, using more discoveries and a largest discovery size at the higher end of the uncertainty range, for example the P10 resource of the best prospect; a low case scenario, based on fewer discoveries and a largest discovery at the lower end of the range, for example the P50 resource assigned to the next commitment well.” Quirk [Pg.240 Col.1 Ln.3-14]. Mid, high, and low cases are interpreted as classes.)
and selecting, based on the classification, a prospect scenario of the plurality of prospect scenarios; (“successful prospects and their sizes are selected stochastically as a function of individual prospect risk and volumetric range.” Quirk [Pg.235 Col.2 Ln.16-18])
determining the future field size distribution (FFSD) for the geologic area of interest by combining the sorted respective plurality of prospect volumes of the selected prospect scenario with the sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes of the selected quintile. (See Fig.13 C below. Quirk [Pg.239]. The examiner interprets “sum” to mean “combining”.)
PNG
media_image2.png
460
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Quirk fails to specifically disclose obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of discovered volumes associated with a respective plurality of dates, sorting the plurality of discovered volumes by the respective plurality of dates, dividing the sorted plurality of discovered volumes into quintiles, where each quintile includes a sorted subset of the plurality of discovered volumes, and wherein each quintile is sorted by a size of the respective subset of the plurality of discovered volumes.
Although, analogous art of Eustance discloses, obtaining a plurality of discovered volumes associated with the geologic area of interest, the plurality of discovered volumes associated with a respective plurality of dates; (“The approach uses annual exploration data, dry hole and discoveries, and the discovery size (i.e. volume)” Eustance [Pg.1 Abstract])
sorting the plurality of discovered volumes by the respective plurality of dates; (“The input data are ordered by date” Eustance [Pg.2 P.3])
dividing the sorted plurality of discovered volumes into quintiles, (“The input data are ordered by date, and given a well count number, such