DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-22 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. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1 and 11. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims are maintained.
Applicant argues independent claims 1 and 11 “recite a particular machine which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.” The particular machine Applicant is referring to is a “downhole fluid sampling tool” used to obtain pressure measurements. Applicant references MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, but is not persuasive.
Per MPEP 2106.05(b), “[i]t is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo. [ ] And if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test.” As shown in Office Action dated 12/12/2025 and Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101 section below, independent claims 1 and 11 fail the Alice/Mayo test and do not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B. Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1 and 11.
Amended claims warrant new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C §103 Kulkarni et al. below.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 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 1-5, 7-10, and 22 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process. Note: Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claims 11-15 and 17-21 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine. Note: Claim 16 has been canceled.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover 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:
forming a depth-pressure measurement set from the one or more pressure
measurements; (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, a person can reasonably evaluate measurement data and then create/form a depth/pressure measurement set, with/without the aid of pen and paper.)
creating a solution novelty threshold with a synthesis of at least one threshold, wherein the solution novelty threshold comprises at least a pairwise dissimilar (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably create a solution novelty threshold with a synthesis of at least one threshold, wherein the solution novelty threshold comprises at least a pairwise dissimilar with / without the aid of pen/paper.)
generating a simplicial decomposition for a convex hull of a solution space up to the solution novelty threshold; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably generate/create a simplicial decomposition for a convex hull of a solution space up to the solution novelty threshold, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
identifying at least one simplex within the convex hull of the solution space; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably identify (i.e. observe, evaluate) at least one simplex within the convex hull of the solution space, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
determining a novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) a novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and forming a plurality of solutions within the novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably form/calculate a plurality of solutions within the novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
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 one or more pressure measurements at one or more depths with a downhole fluid sampling tool (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-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.)
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:
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. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(g).
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 11):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover performing mental processes 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.
Regarding independent claim 11, the claim recites the limitations of:
form a depth-pressure measurement set from the one or more pressure
measurements; (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. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate measurement data and then create/form a depth/pressure measurement set, with/without the aid of pen and paper.)
create a solution novelty threshold with a synthesis of at least one threshold, wherein the solution novelty threshold comprises at least a pairwise dissimilar; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably create a solution novelty threshold with a synthesis of at least one threshold, wherein the solution novelty threshold comprises at least a pairwise dissimilar with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
generate a simplicial decomposition for a convex hull of a solution space up to the solution novelty threshold; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably generate/create a simplicial decomposition for a convex hull of a solution space up to the solution novelty threshold, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
identify at least one simplex within the convex hull of the solution space; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably identify (i.e. observe, evaluate) at least one simplex within the convex hull of the solution space, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
determine a novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) a novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and form a plurality of solutions within the novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. For instance, a person can reasonably form/calculate a plurality of solutions within the novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (claim 11):
As per claim 11, 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:
a downhole fluid sampling tool configured to obtain one or more pressure measurements at one or more depths (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-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.)
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 11):
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. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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, v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites, wherein identifying the at least one simplex within the convex hull of the solution space is performed by adding a new simplex point that maximizes a hyperplane in a null space of a new simplex, wherein the new simplex is augmented by one dimension when the new simplex point is added The additional limitations elaborate on identifying the at least one simplex, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, further comprising forming a simplex-decomposition- generating algorithm with the simplicial decomposition. The additional limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably form/determine a simplex-decomposition- generating algorithm with the simplicial decomposition, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4, which is dependent upon claim 3, further recites, further comprising applying the simplex- decomposition-generating algorithm to each of the at least one simplex. The additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5, which is dependent upon claim 4, recites further comprising finding one or more interior points within each simplex from the novel simplex interior The additional limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably find (i.e. observe, evaluate) one or more interior points within each simplex from the novel simplex interior, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 (canceled)
Claim 7 further recites, wherein the at least one threshold comprises a gradient slope differentiation threshold, a gradient offset differentiation threshold, or a partitioning differentiation threshold. The additional limitation elaborates on the at least one threshold, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 further recites, further comprising finding a solution space inscribed simplex within the solution novelty threshold The additional limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably find (i.e. observe, evaluate) a solution space inscribed simplex within the solution novelty threshold, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 further recites, wherein the solution space is at least based in part on one or more inequalities The additional limitation elaborates on the solution space, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10, which is dependent upon claim 9, further recites, wherein the one or more inequalities are physical fluid gradient constraints The additional limitation elaborates on the one or more inequalities, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 12-15 and 17-21 (Note: Claim 16 has been canceled) recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-5, 7-10 and 22 respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 22, which is dependent upon claim 9, further recites, wherein the one or more inequalities are measurement constraints The additional limitation elaborates on the one or more inequalities, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 7-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chok et al. US Patent No. 9921204 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Chok”) in view of Stark et al. US Pub No. 2020/0149387 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Stark”) in further view of Kulkarni et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0411041 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kulkarni”).
Regarding claim 1, Chok discloses obtaining one or more pressure measurements at one or more depths with a downhole fluid sampling tool; (“the tool 10 obtains formation fluids and measurements at various depths in the borehole 16 to determine properties of the formation fluids in various zones.” Chok [Col.18 Ln.58], “A pressure sensor 64 measures the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid in the borehole.” Chok [Col.19 Ln.31])
creating a solution novelty threshold with a synthesis of at least one threshold, ; (“As the constraints are all linear, it follows that geometrically the underlying solution set corresponds to the space within a bounded multidimensional polyhedron (i.e., polytope) having dimensions on the order of the number of constituents. An example of such a polytope is illustrated in FIG. 2A, where the space 202 defining the polytope represents the solution set. As can be seen the space 202 is bounded by hyperplanes (i.e. solution novelty threshold) 204A-204G which are defined by the linear constraints.” Chok [Col.6 Ln.59]. Hyperplanes are interpreted as solution novelty thresholds due to Applicant’s disclosure “The solution novelty threshold is a metric applied to the plurality of solutions over solution space as a constraint.” Spec. [P.0052])
generating a simplicial decomposition for a convex hull of a solution space up to the solution novelty threshold; (“As polytopes may be difficult to characterize directly, a more efficient characterization of the solution space (or approximation thereof) may be done by decomposing the underlying polytope (i.e. solution set/space) into a more manageable geometric sets. In one embodiment, this is done by performing a simplicial decomposition of the underlying polytope. This involves dissecting the solution space into a set of high-order triangles (referred to herein as simplices) given the vertex set defining its convex hull. This is illustrated in FIG. 4, where the polytope's convex hull 302 of FIG. 3 is decomposed into 5 simplices 402A-402E.” Chok [Col.7 Ln.37]. The solution space is interpreted to be bounded by the solution novelty threshold because “the space 202 is bounded by hyperplanes (i.e. solution novelty threshold) 204A-204G which are defined by the linear constraints.” Chok [Col.6 Ln.59])
identifying at least one simplex within the convex hull of the solution space; (“This is illustrated in FIG. 4, where the polytope's convex hull 302 of FIG. 3 is decomposed into 5 simplices (i.e. at least one simplex) 402A-402E.” Chok [Col.7 Ln.45])
determining a novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex; (“at least one of the one or more simplices is divided into a frustum and a remaining portion by a hyperplane defined by a minimum presence threshold.” Chok [Col.3 Ln.61]. The act of dividing one or more simplices into a frustrum is interpreted as determining a novel simplex interior due to Applicant’s disclosure “each simplex may undergo delimitation (i.e. divide) to determine a novel simplex interior” Spec. [P.0055])
and forming a plurality of solutions within the novel simplex interior of the at least one simplex. (“A volume (i.e. solution space, aka plurality of solutions) of the each of the generated one or more frusta is calculated, and the one or more qualitative states for the one or more constituents are calculated by calculating state probabilities for each of the one or more constituents based on the minimum confidence threshold, the one or more simplex volumes (i.e. novel simplex interior), and the one or more frustum volumes.” Chok [Col.3 Ln.64]. Volume is interpreted as a plurality of solutions because “To characterize the solution space for the composition of the sample fluid, the volume of each of the one or more simplices can be calculated” Chok [Col.3 Ln.1])
Chok fails to specifically disclose forming a depth-pressure measurement set from the one or more pressure measurements and wherein the solution novelty threshold comprises at least a pairwise dissimilar.
However, analogous art of Stark discloses forming a depth-pressure measurement set from the one or more pressure measurements; (“A determination of the fluid type and/or fluid contacts in a reservoir compartment begins with taking pressure measurements in the formation over a plurality of depths to define a data set of data points such as pressure-depth data points.” Stark [P.0017])
Chok and Stark are analogous art as both address downhole fluid analysis in borehole environments using downhole tools and sensors. Each involves data acquisition at depth, processing with advanced algorithms, and outputting properties or characteristics of fluids or formations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chok to include a depth-pressure measurement set, as Stark discloses, since “[p]ressure measurements are more conclusive indicators of fluid type and location of fluid contacts compared to conventional log measurements.” Stark [P.0003])
Although, Stark also fails to specifically disclose wherein the solution novelty threshold comprises at least a pairwise dissimilar.
However, Kulkarni discloses wherein the solution novelty threshold comprises at least a pairwise dissimilar (“MDS can provide for visualization of how near points are to each other for various metrics (e.g., distance, dissimilarity metrics, etc.) and can produce a representation of data in a smaller number of dimensions. As an example, MDS can operate on a matrix of pairwise distances or dissimilarities (or similarities).” Kulkarni [P.0172]).
Kulkarni is analogous art as it relates to subsurface data analysis in the oil and gas industry, involves processing complex, multi-dimensional data from wells to extract meaningful information for reservoir or field characterization, and uses advanced computational techniques to improve the interpretation of subsurface measurements. Kulkarni discloses “receiving well logs, as series data, for wells, where the well logs represent stratigraphic characteristics of a field; for each of the well logs, generating a corresponding vector representation in a dimensional space using a transformer encoder; and determining similarity of the well logs via their corresponding vector representations to characterize well log quality for well log correlation of the field” [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chok to include a solution novelty threshold comprising at least a pairwise dissimilar, as Kulkarni discloses” in order “to reduce dimensionality, for example, for purposes of machine and/or human analysis, etc.” Kulkarni [P.0173].
Regarding claim 2, Chok-Stark-Kulkarni disclose the method of claim 1, Chok further discloses wherein identifying the at least one simplex within the convex hull of the solution space is performed by adding a new simplex point that maximizes a hyperplane in a null space of a new simplex, wherein the new simplex is augmented by one dimension when the new simplex point is added. (“As can be seen (see FIG.5 below), the original polytope defined by the seven vertices 502A-502G is approximated by a polytope P′ 506 which is defined by only four vertices 504A-504D (i.e. new simplex points – additions to FIG.4). Thus, the complexity of the embedding polytope as assessed in terms of the number of bounding hyperplanes and the size of the vertex set is smaller than that of the original polytope.” Chok [Col.12 Ln.40]. Note: the lines in FIG.5 represent bounding hyperplanes and the area outside bounded region is the null space (i.e. empty solution set space). Also note that the addition of the new simplex points (i.e. 504A-504D) are augmented by one dimension since they are the location where two lines meet, which is interpreted to mean two dimensions because “As shown (see FIG.2B), the vertices 206A-206G are corners where (in the case of this two dimensional example) two lines meet. More generally, each of these vertices lies in the intersection of multiple hyperplanes on the order of the dimension of these vertices.” Chok [Col.7 Ln.7])
PNG
media_image1.png
425
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chok-Stark-Kulkarni disclose the method of claim 1, Chok further discloses further comprising forming a simplex-decomposition- generating algorithm with the simplicial decomposition. (“Assuming either a uniform or known (prior) arbitrary probability distribution over the complete solution set, as discussed in detail below, algorithms may be developed to estimate the fluid composition both qualitatively and quantitatively” Chok [Col.7 Ln.51], “Qualitative composition estimation [...] can be easily computed because it can be directly obtained by summing the volumes of all simplices in the simplicial decomposition, and the volume of a simplex is computable knowing its vertex set using formulae known in the art.” Chok [Col.7 Ln.56])
Regarding claim 4, Chok discloses the method of claim 3 and further discloses further comprising applying the simplex- decomposition-generating algorithm to each of the at least one simplex. (“Qualitative composition estimation [...] can be easily computed because it can be directly obtained by summing the volumes of all simplices in the simplicial decomposition, and the volume of a simplex is computable knowing its vertex set using formulae known in the art.” Chok [Col.7 Ln.56])
Regarding claim 5, Chok discloses the method of claim 4 and further discloses further comprising finding one or more interior points within each simplex from the novel simplex interior. (“A simplex 800 cut into two parts 802 and 804 as a result of a cutting hyperplane is shown in FIG. 8. Simplex 800 is divided into an upper portion 802 and a lower portion 804 by the hyperplane passing through the segment 806.” Chok [Col.14 Ln.42]. See FIG.7/8 below for clarification.)
PNG
media_image2.png
761
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 (canceled)
Regarding claim 7, Chok-Stark-Kulkarni disclose the method of claim 1, although Chok fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one threshold comprises a gradient slope differentiation threshold, a gradient offset differentiation threshold, or a partitioning differentiation threshold. However, Stark further discloses wherein the at least one threshold comprises a gradient slope differentiation threshold, a gradient offset differentiation threshold, or a partitioning differentiation threshold. (”If the mean of the pressures gradients and/or a mean of the intercepts (i.e. offset) associated with adjacent clusters exceed a threshold level” Stark [P.0021]. Intercepts are interpreted as offset because “A slope (i.e., pressure gradient as between the combination of the pressure-depth data points) and intercept are tabulated for each line associated with each combination. In some cases, the intercept (also referred to as an offset) is with respect to fixed datum such as but not limited to a surface or depth mark)” Stark [P.0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chok to include a gradient offset differentiation threshold, as Stark discloses, in order to calculate “a mean and/or standard deviation of the pressure gradients associated with each of the clusters” since “[t]he mean and/or standard deviation of the pressure gradients is indicative of the fluid type associated with each of the cluster[s]” Stark [P.0021])
Regarding claim 8, Chok-Stark-Kulkarni disclose the method of claim 1, Chok further discloses further comprising finding a solution space inscribed simplex within the solution novelty threshold. (“The total volume of the space above the threshold constraint can thus be obtained by summing the volumes of all generated frusta (or complements thereof depending on the position of any underlying simplex relative to the cutting hyperplane).” Chok [Col.8 Ln.16]. Summing the volumes of all generated frustra (see Chok [Col.14 Ln.51] for frustra definition) is interpreted as a solution space inscribed simplex due to Applicant’s disclosure “finding a solution-space-inscribed simplex in block 604 may be a union of polyhedral slices (i.e. summing the volumes).” Spec. [P.0053])
Regarding claim 9, Chok-Stark-Kulkarni disclose the method of claim 1, Chok further discloses wherein the solution space is at least based in part on one or more inequalities. (“To characterize the solution space for the composition of the sample, a linear inequality system can be calculated where the linear inequality system defines a complete polyhedral solution set” Chok [Col.2 Ln.31])
Regarding claim 10, Chok discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the one or more inequalities are physical fluid gradient constraints (“by assuming that these basis spectra are sampled at sufficiently fine granularity of the temperature and pressure ranges (i.e. gradient constraints) and that the variability (i.e. inequality) of the measurement error within each individual basis spectrum may be contained, such uncertainties may be incorporated into the formulation.” Chok [Col.11 Ln.34])
Claims 11-15 and 17-21 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-5, 7-10 and 22 respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 (canceled)
Regarding claim 22, Chok discloses the system of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the one or more inequalities are measurement constraints. (“The original inequality constraints involving the basis spectra are as follows: (see equation (16) [...] ” Chok [Col.2 Ln.31]. Basis spectra is interpreted to be measured because “basis spectra contain inherent errors in spectral measurements” Chok [Col.11 Ln.33])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (Automatic Interpretation Of Drilling Dynamics Data – US Pat. No 11821299 B2). “ the neural network can also include linkage criteria that specifies the dissimilarity of sets of sensor measurement data as a function of pairwise distances of data points in the sets of sensor measurement data.” [Col.8 Ln.32]
Klenner et al. (Process For Infill Well Development In A Subsurface Reservoir – US Pat. No 11492896 B2). “using appropriate thresholds where necessary, each well interaction matrix is transformed into a three-label matrix where the three entry-labels respectively correspond to the supporting, refuting, or unavailable information pertinent to inferring pairwise interaction” [Col.11 Ln.27]
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, 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 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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights