Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on February 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception or abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of the respective claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. No claims are allowed.
Explanation of Rejection
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-20: the instant claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 follows a two-step analysis based on the Alice and Mayo v. Prometheus court decisions. After determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. §101 (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), there are two steps more to the eligibility analysis to determine whether the claims are directed to abstract ideas [Such as mathematical algorithms, as in the instant case], natural phenomena, and laws of nature, without significantly more, in which case they would not be eligible for patent protection.
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
Here, claim 1 is representative, and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
Claim 1: A system for classifying rock types, the system comprising:
one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain subsurface representation information defining a subsurface representation of a reservoir, the subsurface representation characterizing subsurface configuration of a region the reservoir using values of one or more subsurface properties, the one or more subsurface properties comprising topography, flow velocity, depth, and/or flow concentration;
present the subsurface representation of the reservoir on a display;
obtain a user's initial classification of rock types for portions of the subsurface representation based on the user's interaction with the subsurface representation that marks the portions of the subsurface representation as being shale, lobe, or channel, wherein a first portion of the subsurface representation is initially classified by the user as a first rock type and a second portion of the subsurface representation is initially classified by the user as a second rock type;
initially determine rock type definitions for the rock types based on the user's initial classification of the rock types for the portions of the subsurface representation, the rock type definitions indicating likelihood of a particular part of the subsurface representation being shale, lobe, or channel based on the values of the topography, the flow velocity, the depth, and/or the flow concentration within the particular part of the subsurface representation, wherein determining the rock type definitions comprises determining probability distributions for the rock types based on the user's initial classification of the rock types for the portions of the subsurface representation, wherein the probability distributions for the rock types are initially determined based on the values of the topography, the flow velocity, the depth, and/or the flow concentration one or more subsurface properties within the portions of the subsurface representation initially classified by the user, wherein one or more probability distributions for the first rock type is initially determined based on the values of the topography, the flow velocity, the depth, and/or the flow concentration one or more subsurface properties within the first portion of the subsurface representation initially classified by the user as the first rock type and one or more probability distributions for the second rock type is initially determined based on the values of the topography, the flow velocity, the depth, and/or the flow concentration one or more subsurface properties within the second portion of the subsurface representation initially classified by the user as the second rock type, an individual probability distribution defining likelihood of a given rock type as a function of values of a given subsurface property;
determine classification of the rock types within the subsurface representation based on a spatial distribution of the classification of the rock types within the subsurface representation and the probability distributions for the rock types initially determined based on the user's initial classification of the rock types for the portions of the subsurface representation; and
present the classification of the rock types within the subsurface representation on the display;
wherein the classification of the rock types within the subsurface representation is iteratively adjusted via updating the probability distributions for the rock types and applying the updated probability distributions to adjust the classification of the rock types, wherein a given iteration includes:
updating the probability distributions for the rock types based on the values of the topography, the flow velocity, the depth, and/or the flow concentration within parts of the subsurface representation classified in a preceding iteration; and
re-determining the classification of the rock types within the subsurface representation based on the updated probability distributions for the rock types.
Prong I: The claim limitations in bold font above represent the abstract idea, a mathematical algorithm, i.e., determining probability distributions for the rock types based on the values of the one or more subsurface properties within the portion of the subsurface representation” which includes the recited steps of obtaining subsurface representation information or data, determining a probability distribution, and determining classification of rock types.
The concept of receiving data, performing calculations using the data, and then displaying the results have been identified in analogous court decisions as an abstract idea, as essentially trying to monopolize a mathematical algorithm or formula. For instance, in the recent United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court ruling of August 1, 2016, in Electric Power Group, LLC versus Alston S.A., the court affirmed that “the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under 35 U.S.C. §101”.
Similarly, the instant claim here is simply directed to collecting information (obtain subsurface representation information), analyzing it (determine probability distribution), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (determine classification of the rock types [from the collected data]). In this case, the claim lacks detail in that it does not specify how the data is collected or even what data exactly is collected, and the claim does not specify how the data are used exactly, instead merely reciting that “carrying out or determining the probability distributions for the rock types" in some manner. In this case, the data analysis is in the context of simply classifying rock types from a given data, and the claim does not recite particular details about the collection of data or the use of the results beyond what is conventional in the art, so in practice the claim would tend to monopolize the classification of the rock types using the probability distributions of the rock types, so it is reasonable to conclude that the claim is “directed to” the recited abstract idea of analysis of rock types.
The instant claim, as noted above, is further amended to include initial classification is done by the user where “rock type definitions for the rock types based on the user’s initial classification of the rock types for the portions of the subsurface representation, the rock type definitions indicating likelihood of the particular part of the subsurface representation being shale, lobe, or channel based on the value of the topography, the flow velocity, the depth, and/or flow concentration within the particular part of the subsurface representation, wherein determining the rock type definition comprises determining the probability distributions for the rock types initially determined based on the user’s initial classification of the rock types for the portion of the subsurface representation” and an adjustment is carried out “via updating the probability distribution for the rock types and applying updated probability distributions to adjust classification” then “redetermining the classification of the rock types”; however, these added concepts, as stated are carried out by the user, and the exercise amount to human thought process and computational analysis or mathematical algorithm.
Prong II: For the second step of the analysis, we look at the remaining limitations of the claim other than those which are part of the abstract idea, namely the additional elements (written in a normal font in the copy of the claim above). These additional elements include “one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions”.
These additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea (determine probability distribution for the rock types, and determine classification of rock type) with a generic computer processing system. Further, presenting “the classification of the rock types within the subsurface representation on a display” is in fact abstract idea because presenting abstract on a display is not a significantly more than an abstract concept. Therefore, taken as a combination, these elements of a conventional computer do not make the claim, taken as a whole, add up to significantly more than the judicial exception or the abstract idea itself (i.e., the mathematical algorithm or algorithm).
Further, there is no indication that the combination provides any improvement regarding the functioning of the computer itself or any improvement to any other particular technology, in the sense that the recited claim to a rubber-curing method in Diamond v. Diehr included additional elements that made the claim taken as a whole an improvement in the technology of rubber-curing, rather than an attempt to monopolize the recited abstract idea (in that case, the recited Arrhenius equation, which was known to be conventional).
In Diamond v. Diehr the claim as a whole recited a method of rubber-curing using thermometers in the mold collecting data to determine when to halt the curing process, a technique which had not been used before, and which differed qualitatively from simply curing the rubber in the mold for a predetermined length of time (even if that predetermined time might have been determined using the Arrhenius equation). In the present claim, the claim does not recite a particular technological process which is an improvement over the prior art in this manner, in that it only recites the collection and analysis of data, followed by the classification of rock types.
Therefore, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea, namely the algorithm using the recited steps to determine “classification of rock types.” Therefore, the particular elements of the claim, i.e., the abstract idea or mathematical algorithm as in the instant case, individually or as an ordered combination of other elements in the claim, do not add enough to transform the claim into patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
For similar reasons, analogous independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. These claims either merely extend the limitations which are part of the abstract idea, or they add additional elements which are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, and described at a high level of generality.
With regard to claims 2 and 12: directed to the reduction of the global energy function, which is part of the algorithm.
With regard to claims 3 and 13: the classification scheme using a misfit function, part of the computational analysis of the abstract idea.
With regard to claims 4 and 14: the selection of rock type through the algorithm, extend the abstract idea concept.
With regard to claims 5 and 15: weighted and misfit classification analysis that extend the abstract idea concept.
With regard to claims 6 and 16: talks about the probability distribution function of rock types and simply extend the abstract analysis.
With regard to claims 7 and 17: two-to-three-dimensional subsurface representation of within the classification of rock types, which extend the analysis of the abstract concept noted.
With regard to claims 8 and 18: it describes the subsurface representation are obtained from the three-dimensional representation of the rock type, which extends the abstract idea of the concept of classification of rock type.
With regard to claims 9 and 19: it describes the subsurface representation are obtained from the three-dimensional representation of the rock type, which extends the abstract idea of the concept of classification of rock type.
With regard to claims 10 and 20: the concept is directed to simulation or graphical representation of the computational analysis, which extend the abstract idea as being displayed for the end user.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on February 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception or abstract idea without significantly more considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of the respective claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained for the reasons noted above, and further explained below.
Applicant argued that "the claims are not directed to an abstract idea; and …even if the claims were directed to abstract idea, they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application” see argument, page 11, last two lines in the last paragraph, and page 12, first paragraph).
As stated in the last two office actions, the independent claims, as a matter of reference, are directed to collecting information (obtain subsurface representation information), analyzing or computing it (determining probability distribution), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (determine classification of the rock type from the collected data. Further, the additional features noted in the amended instant claims include displaying the outcome and using the computer hardware and software to carry out the generic task of computing values and outputting the results don’t seem to include a significantly more than the abstract idea concept.
Further, as noted above, presenting “the classification of the rock types within the subsurface representation on a display” is in fact abstract idea because presenting abstract on a display is not a significantly more than an abstract concept. Therefore, taken as a combination, these elements of a conventional computer do not make the claim, taken as a whole, add up to significantly more than the judicial exception or the abstract idea itself (i.e., the mathematical algorithm or algorithm).
In page 12-13, Applicant(s) argued that “However, the limitation of amended independent claims are do not simply represent mathematical algorithm. Just because some of the claim limitations recite a mathematical relationship (probability distributions) does not mean that the claim would monopolize the classification of rock type suing the mathematical relationship. Indeed, the amended independent claims require specific details on subsurface properties and user interaction with a subsurface representation presented on a display to perform rock classification. As amended, the independent claims require a subsurface representation of a reservoir to be presented on a display. The subsurface representation characterizes the subsurface configuration of the reservoir using values of topography, flow velocity, depth, and/or flow concentration. The user interacts with the subsurface representation to mark portions of the subsurface representation as being shale, lobe, or channel. The values of topography, flow velocity, depth, and/or flow concentration in these marked portions of the subsurface representation are used to initially determine rock type definitions for the rock types. The rock type definitions indicate the likelihood that a particular part of the subsurface representation is shale, lobe, or channel based on the corresponding values of topography, flow velocity, depth, and/or flow concentration.”
However, the interaction with the reservoir representation on a display and having input from the end user to carry through a classification scheme based on the probabilities or statistical analysis of the collected data is abstract concept because the computer hardware and software used for the analysis and the input from the expert or an ordinary skill in the art going through the classification process or method or system reads on a computational analysis to classify rock types. Further, there is no indication that the combination provides any improvement regarding the functioning of the computer itself or any improvement to any other particular technology (i.e., by simply classifying the rock types), in the sense that the recited claim to a rubber-curing method in Diamond v. Diehr included additional elements that made the claim taken as a whole an improvement in the technology of rubber-curing, rather than an attempt to monopolize the recited abstract idea (in that case, the recited Arrhenius equation, which was known to be conventional).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hurley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,134,457) discloses Methods for upscaling digital rock modeling data are described. Core-plug samples for pore-scale modeling are chosen using whole-core mini-permeability grids and conventional CT scans. Pore models or pore-network models are used for flow modeling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights