Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the
amendment, claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Following Applicants’ arguments and amendments made on, the 103 rejection of the claims is withdrawn and the 101 rejection is still maintained. See office action for detail.
Applicant 101 arguments
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are not abstract because they recite specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result. The claimed invention is specifically integrated into a practical application because it recites specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result related to "rapid identification of hydrodynamic traps for buoyant fluids such as hydrocarbons and CO2 in subsurface reservoirs."
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the steps including receiving data (depth structure map, tilt and azimuth values), determining hydrodynamic traps and common subset of traps and identifying potential well locations and these steps describe collection data, analyzing data for making a determination regarding drilling locations. Such steps constitute mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Although Applicant argues that the claimed steps are unconventional step, however Applicant has not provided objective evidence demonstrating that the step departs from routine practice in the art. There is no indication that the ordered combination of steps is unconventional in the field of reservoir analysis. The claim limitation merely invokes generic computer components executing standard functions to determine the potential well locations. The simplification of data inputs (avoiding hydraulic head maps by using constant gradients in view of [0016]) is a mathematical optimization of an abstract idea, not a technological solution to a technical problem. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application. The step of “drilling on or more locations at the identified locations.” is merely an insignificant post-solution activity that applies the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any improvement to drilling technology drilling equipment or drilling techniques. Instead, the drilling step simply uses the result of the abstract analysis. Under MPEP 2106.05(h) it is also merely applying an abstract idea to a particular field of use that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims merely determine where to drill and then state the drilling occurs. This is field of use limitation and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Thus, the 101 rejection is still maintained.
Applicant arguments
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are not abstract because they recite various improvements to oil-drilling operation technology.
Examiner response
Applicant argues the claims improve the oil-drilling technology. However, the claims do not recite a new drilling mechanism, improved drilling hardware, improved reservoir simulation technique or specific computation hardware. The claims instead recite the generalized step for analyzing geological data, determining trap locations and identifying well locations. Such steps constitute data analysis for decision making falls under the mental process of abstract ideas. The claims recite the improvement in the abstract idea itself of identifying hydrodynamic traps in hydrocarbon reservoirs. As MPEP 2106.05(a): It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The Applicant cited specification [0044-0046] describe known techniques for modeling fluid contact tilt, identifying traps and selecting drilling locations. There is no indication that the ordered combination of steps is unconventional in the field of reservoir analysis. Unlike DDR Holdings which involves specific technological solution to an internet centric problem, the instant claim does not address a computer-network problem or improve computer technology. Instead, the claims use a computer as a tool to perform calculations and identify drilling locations. This is insufficient to confer eligibility under 101. Accordingly, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the 101 rejection is still maintained.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-7 are directed method or process, which falls on the one of the statutory category.
Claims:15-20 is directed system or machine, which falls on the one of the statutory category.
Claim: 8-14 is directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more program, which falls on the one of the statutory category that is manufacture.
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 15
Step 2A Prong 1 Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception
determining, by executing an iterative adjustment of the plurality of pairs of tilt values and tilt azimuth values, first transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt values and second transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt azimuth values, wherein each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a respective set of hydrodynamic traps associated with the subsurface reservoir, and wherein the iterative adjustment is limited by global characterization and local characterization of the geological structure associated with the subsurface reservoir; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The inputs are a depth structure map, a tilt value, and a tilt azimuth. The output is a "respective set of hydrodynamic traps." Applying a local/global bounding rule and iteratively recalculating a map—can be written out and solved using pen, and paper. This is akin to observing data and making a judgment based on that data, which is a key characteristic of an abstract mental process.)
determining that the respective set of hydrodynamic traps of each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a common subset of hydrodynamic traps visible in a subset of the first transformed depth structure maps and of the second transformed depth structure maps; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The mental process of comparing two or more sets of items and identifying which items they share is a basic cognitive function. The process of gathering data (the "respective set of hydrodynamic traps" for each tilt value and azimuth) and then comparing them to find a common set is a classic example of an abstract data manipulation routine.) and
identifying one or more locations of potential wells associated with the subsurface reservoir based at least on the determined common subset of hydrodynamic traps. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The method involves analyzing geological data to identify hydrodynamic traps, comparing these traps to find a common subset, and then identifying potential well locations within that subset. This is a classic mental process of gathering, comparing, and concluding based on information.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional element of receiving a depth structure map of a geological structure associated with a subsurface reservoir and receiving a plurality pairs of tilt value and tilt azimuth value associated with a fluid contact of the subsurface reservoir which also can be recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g) The additional elements of “drilling one or more wells at the one or more locations of potential wells associated with the subsurface reservoir” is further limiting an abstract idea to the field of use as cited in MPEP 2106.05(h) or adding insignificant post solution activity as cited in MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of a computer-implemented method in claim 1, a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system in claim 8 and a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers in claim 15 are amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional element of receiving a depth structure map of a geological structure associated with a subsurface reservoir and receiving a plurality pairs of tilt value and tilt azimuth value associated with a fluid contact of the subsurface reservoir which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering), and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) The additional elements of “drilling one or more wells at the one or more locations of potential wells associated with the subsurface reservoir” is further limiting an abstract idea to the field of use as cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) or adding insignificant post solution activity as cited in MPEP 2106.05(g).. (SEE MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements of a computer-implemented method in claim 1, a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system in claim 8 and a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers in claim 15 are amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to abstract idea.
Claim 2, 9 and 16 further recites wherein receiving the plurality of pairs of tilt value and tilt azimuth value associated with the fluid contact of the subsurface reservoir comprises: receiving, from a user and through two interactive sliders displayed on a mapping application, the plurality pairs of tilt value and tilt azimuth value, wherein the two interactive sliders are controlled by the user. This is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering), and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3, 10 and 17 further recites wherein determining, for each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value and based at least on the depth structure map, the respective set of hydrodynamic traps associated with the subsurface reservoir comprises: determining a respective two-dimensional plane based at least on each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value; determining a respective transformed depth structure map by rotating the depth structure map using the respective two-dimensional plane; and determining the respective set of hydrodynamic traps based at least on the respective transformed depth structure map. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim essentially formalizes a process that a skilled geologist could perform mentally or with pencil and paper. A geologist could use a physical map and conceptualize how different "tilts" would affect the location of potential traps. The steps—determining a plane, rotating a map, and identifying traps—are all data-centric operations of data manipulation. The claimed method merely automates this human mental process. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4, 11 and 18 further recites identifying the one or more locations of potential wells associated with the subsurface reservoir based at least on the determined common subset of hydrodynamic traps comprises: identifying the one or more locations of potential wells associated with the subsurface reservoir as locations of the determined common subset of hydrodynamic traps. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The method involves analyzing geological data to identify hydrodynamic traps, comparing these traps to find a common subset, and then identifying potential well locations within that subset. This is a classic mental process of gathering, comparing, and concluding based on information. The claimed method merely automates this human mental process. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5, 12 and 19 further recites wherein the depth structure map comprises a tilted fluid contact in the subsurface reservoir. The claim is ineligibly abstract because it does "no more than generally link" this judicial exception to a particular "technological environment" or "field of use," namely, the creation of a depth structure map for a subsurface reservoir. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6, 13 and 20 further recites wherein each tilt value in the plurality pairs of tilt value and tilt azimuth value is within a first range determined by fluid density information from one or more wells of the subsurface reservoir. The phrase "wherein each tilt value...is within a first range determined by fluid density information" describes a mathematical concept or formula for calculating and constraining a set of values. (see para [0022] It uses "fluid density information" as an input to determine a "first range." So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 and 14 further recites wherein the first range is further determined by hydraulic head gradient information from the one or more wells of the subsurface reservoir. The process described is inherently a mathematical calculation (see para [0022]) because it: determines a range of acceptable values based on input data (fluid density and hydraulic head gradient) from specific locations (wells) and checks if other data points (pairs of tilt value and tilt azimuth value) fall within that calculated range. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this application.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of Ramdhan et al. ("HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS ON HYDRODYNAMIC TRAP IN KUTAI BASIN AND ITS OPPORTUNITY.", 2007), and in view of YANG et al. “Equation for defining hydrodynamic oil-water contact surface and an alternative approach, “structure surface transformation” for mapping hydrodynamic traps “, and in view of WENDEBOURG et al. “Hydrodynamics and hydrocarbon trapping: Concepts, pitfalls and insights from case studies” further in view of Abrahamsen, Petter. ("COHIBA User Manual Version 7.0." (2021)) and Scollard et al. (US20150331971A1, instant independent claims 1, 8, and 15, would not have been anticipated or obvious by one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Ramdhan et al. ("HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS ON HYDRODYNAMIC TRAP IN KUTAI BASIN AND ITS OPPORTUNITY.", 2007) teaches depth structure map of a geological structure associated with a subsurface reservoir; plurality of pairs of tilt values and tilt azimuth values associated with a fluid contact of the subsurface reservoir and determining hydrodynamic traps.
YANG et al. “Equation for defining hydrodynamic oil-water contact surface and an alternative approach, “structure surface transformation” for mapping hydrodynamic traps “ teaches mapping hydrodynamic traps.
WENDEBOURG et al. “Hydrodynamics and hydrocarbon trapping: Concepts, pitfalls and insights from case studies “teaches hydrodynamics for hydrocarbon trapping.
Scollard et al. (US20150331971A1) rendering at least a portion of a plan to a display of a computing system where the plan includes at least one pad that includes associated wells. As an example, a plan may be for a play that includes oil and gas resources where such a play may be characterized at least in part by one or more of porosity, permeability, fluid trapping mechanism,
For claim 1, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “determining, by executing an iterative adjustment of the plurality of pairs of tilt values and tilt azimuth values, first transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt values and second transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt azimuth values, wherein each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a respective set of hydrodynamic traps associated with the subsurface reservoir, and wherein the iterative adjustment is limited by global characterization and local characterization of the geological structure associated with the subsurface reservoir; determining that the respective set of hydrodynamic traps of each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a common subset of hydrodynamic traps visible in a subset of the first transformed depth structure maps and of the second transformed depth structure maps;”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 2-6 would be allowable for depending from claim 1 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 8, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “determining, by executing an iterative adjustment of the plurality of pairs of tilt values and tilt azimuth values, first transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt values and second transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt azimuth values, wherein each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a respective set of hydrodynamic traps associated with the subsurface reservoir, and wherein the iterative adjustment is limited by global characterization and local characterization of the geological structure associated with the subsurface reservoir; determining that the respective set of hydrodynamic traps of each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a common subset of hydrodynamic traps visible in a subset of the first transformed depth structure maps and of the second transformed depth structure maps;”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 9-14 would be allowable for depending from claim 8 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 15, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “determining, by executing an iterative adjustment of the plurality of pairs of tilt values and tilt azimuth values, first transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt values and second transformed depth structure maps of adjusted tilt azimuth values, wherein each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a respective set of hydrodynamic traps associated with the subsurface reservoir, and wherein the iterative adjustment is limited by global characterization and local characterization of the geological structure associated with the subsurface reservoir; determining that the respective set of hydrodynamic traps of each pair of tilt value and tilt azimuth value comprises a common subset of hydrodynamic traps visible in a subset of the first transformed depth structure maps and of the second transformed depth structure maps;”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 16-20 would be allowable for depending from claim 15 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wendebourg, Johannes, Jean-Jacques Biteau, and Yves Grosjean. "Hydrodynamics and hydrocarbon trapping: Concepts, pitfalls and insights from case studies." Marine and Petroleum Geology 96 (2018): 190-201.
Discussing the basics of hydrodynamic flow in sedimentary basins and how it can affect the trapping of hydrocarbon fluids and also discuss how hydrodynamics can be recognized in the data and what possible pitfalls are.
US 20190266294 A1 Dogru
ii. Discussing method for locating new oil & gas fields and predicting reservoir performance from hydrocarbon migration based on thermal simulation of thermal history and chemical reactions triggered by high temperature and pressure in subsurface geological structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights