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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 47-76, 83-92 and 139-217 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 05/26/2026.
2. Claim rejection of Claims 47-74, 85-92 under USC 102(a)(2) is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 05/26/2026.
USC 101 argument answer
3. The current amendment fails to overcome the USC 101 rejection because the additional limitations in the amended sections in independent claims 47, 139 and 181 explicitly recites an equation and/or a numerical solution, without any recitation how this equation or numerical solution is integrated into a practical application. Therefore this limitation, along with the other limitations of the claims recites ‘mathematical concept’ grouping of abstract idea without any limitation that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application and/or is significantly more. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is maintained in the current office action.
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.
4. Claims 47-76, 83-92 and 139-217 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 47 recite:
determining, with an analytical solution, a change to at least one control point of a boundary of a control volume defined in a subterranean formation, the change to the at least one control point comprising a displacement field and caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or
adjacent the subterranean formation, the analytical solution comprising
ui(x) = f(Dimcv, Dimtreatfrac,vec).
determining, with a numerical solution, a fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point;
determining, with a solver, at least one dimension of at least one of the control volume or the hydraulic fracture based at least in part on the determined fluid pressure change of the control volume.
Independent claim 139 recite:
determining, with an analytical solution, a change to at least one control point of a
boundary of a control volume defined in a subterranean formation, the change to the at least one
control point caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation,
the analytical solution comprising a modified Eshelby solution that comprises one or more
equations that determine the at least one control point based at least in part on a plurality of
parameters that are associated with the control volume and the hydraulic fracture;
determining, with a numerical solution, a fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point; and
determining, with a solver, at least one dimension of at least one of the control volume or the hydraulic fracture based at least in part on the determined fluid pressure change of the control volume.
Independent claim 181 recite:
determining, with an analytical solution, a change to at least one control point of a
boundary of a control volume defined in a subterranean formation, the change to the at least one
control point caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation;
determining, with a numerical solution, a fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point, wherein the determining the fluid pressure change comprises calculating, with the numerical solution executed by the one or more
hardware processors, a pressure transfer function on the control volume based on the fluid
pressure change on the control volume; and
determining, with a solver, at least one dimension of at least one of the control volume or the hydraulic fracture based at least in part on the determined fluid pressure change of the control volume.
All of which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, calculations, analysis as well as explicit recitation of formulas or equations. Said limitations in claims 47, 139 and 181 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation that covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. Other than reciting “one or more memory modules” and “one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memory modules” in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being considered as mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation that are considered mathematical concept including mathematical relationships, calculation, equations/formulas, analysis but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. As such claim 47, 139 and 181 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of “one or more memory modules” and “one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memory modules” to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “the change to the at least one control point caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation” is an insignificant pre-solution activity. As such this additional element also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Finally, the pre-processing step of “the change to the at least one control point caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation” is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g). Claims 47, 139 and 181 only recite “one or more memory modules” and “one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memory modules” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a general purpose computer rather than a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the determining steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 47, 139 and 181 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 48-51, 140-143 and 182-185 are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a displacement field, evaluating a displacement vector of the displacement field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one displacement on the boundary of the control volume, defining the displacement field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 52-55, 144-147 and 186-189 are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a stress field, evaluating a stress tensor of the stress field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one stress on the boundary of the control volume, defining the stress field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 56-59, 148-151 and 190-193 are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a strain field, evaluating a strain tensor of the strain field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one strain on the boundary of the control volume, defining the strain field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 60-63, 152-155 and 194-197are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a traction field, evaluating a traction vector of the strain field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one strain on the boundary of the control volume, defining the traction field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 64-74, 156-166 and 198-208 are directed to further limiting the composition and dimension of the control volume and hydraulic fracture using mathematical calculation and analysis - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 76, 83-84, 167-172 and 209 are directed to further limiting the details of analytical solutions in terms of mathematical formula/equations and parameters of the mathematical formula/equations - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 85-92, 173-180 and 210-217 are directed to further limiting preforming dimension optimization of the control volume by the solver using mathematical calculation and analysis - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Conclusion
5. Claims 47-76, 83-92 and 139-217 are rejected.
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)-272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights