DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Note
The case has been inherited from the previous Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are various: “module” in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 6-9 and 11-15 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations, “receiving a core description comprising a plurality of lithofacies and at least one sequence boundary, defining the at least one sequence boundary received as part of the core description, aligning the plurality of lithofacies within each sequence defined by the at least one sequence boundary, classifying predecessors for each lithofacies of the plurality of lithofacies;
developing realizations of ordering for the plurality of lithofacies using the predecessors and classifications for each lithofacies, generating a depositional ordering model of the plurality of lithofacies from the core description using the realizations, and using the depositional ordering model to construct a 2D depositional model of a horizontal arrangement of the plurality of lithofacies,” are abstract ideas as they recite limitations involving a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. Note: The claims of “adjusting a hydrocarbon extraction activity” is also an abstract idea, as it may involve mental process such as identifying reservoir connectivity, as disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “processor and computer-readable medium of an electronic device,” and various “modules,” but said limitations are merely a recitation of general-purpose processors for implementing the abstract idea in a generic electronic device. The claims additionally recite “a hydrocarbon extraction module operable to generate control information for an operation of hydrocarbon extraction equipment,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is merely an insignificant post-solution activity. The claims do not improve the functioning of any devices and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of constructing a 2D depositional model of a horizontal arrangement of the plurality of lithofacies. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and not eligible. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “processor and computer-readable medium of an electronic device,” and various “modules” but said limitations are merely a recitation of general-purpose processor for implementing the abstract idea in a generic electronic device, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “a hydrocarbon extraction module operable to generate control information for an operation of hydrocarbon extraction equipment,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is merely an insignificant post-solution activity, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional, and without a particular end use. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algheryafi et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0082729 (hereinafter Algheryafi) in views of Catuneanu et al., “Sequence Stratigraphy: Methodology and Nomenclature,” Newsletters on Stratigraphy, Vol. 44/3 (2011) (hereinafter Catuneanu) and Thorne, US-PGPUB 2013/0325350 (hereinafter Thorne).
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 14. Algheryafi teaches: receiving a core description comprising a plurality of lithofacies (Paragraphs [0020-0021], [0028] obtaining core data; Paragraph [0047]);
generating a depositional ordering model of the plurality of lithofacies from the core
description using the realization (Paragraph [0020], depositional model from the core data; Paragraph [0032 locations of different types of rock within the formation); and
using the depositional ordering model to construct a 2D and 3D depositional models of a horizontal arrangement of the plurality of lithofacies (Paragraph [0033] facies thickness mapping model based on depositional model, (Paragraphs [0041]-[0042], 2D and charting, which obviously is in 2D), (Claim 14: a hydrocarbon assessment module operable to determine, based on the depositional ordering model and the 2D depositional model, a presence and/or quality of hydrocarbons within a rock or formation of interest, and a hydrocarbon extraction module operable to generate control information for an operation of hydrocarbon extraction equipment (Paragraph [0046])
Algheryafi does not teach defining the at least one sequence boundary received as part of the core description, aligning the plurality of lithofacies within each sequence defined by the at least one sequence boundary, classifying predecessors for each lithofacies of the plurality of lithofacies, developing realizations of ordering for the plurality of lithofacies using the predecessors and classifications for each lithofacies;
Catuneanu teaches defining the at least one sequence boundary received as part of the core description (Abstract; Part one-Concepts, pages 175-192; pages pg. 233 left column, lines 1-10), aligning the plurality of lithofacies within each sequence defined by the at least one sequence boundary (Fig. 31, page 206; Fig. 46, page 224)
Thorne teaches classifying predecessors for each lithofacies of the plurality of
lithofacies (Paragraph [0018], transition matrix describes facies relationships and transitions; Fig. 2), and developing realizations of ordering for the plurality of lithofacies, wherein the realizations of ordering for the plurality of lithofacies generate reservoir earth models (Paragraph [0025], plurality of realizations used to generate facies probability maps for reservoir earth model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Catuneanu and Thorne in Algheryafi and define the at least one sequence boundary received as part of the core description, aligning the plurality of lithofacies within each sequence defined by the at least one sequence boundary, classify predecessors for each lithofacies of the plurality of lithofacies, develop realizations of ordering for the plurality of lithofacies using the predecessors and classifications for each lithofacies, and generate a depositional ordering model of the plurality of lithofacies from the core description using the realization, with accuracy and automated data interpretation.
Regarding claims 2 and 12. Algheryafi teaches determining a presence of hydrocarbons, a quality of hydrocarbons, or any combination thereof, from the 2D depositional model within an area corresponding to the core description (Paragraphs [0033], [0041]-[0042], 2D and charting, which obviously is in 2D); and
adjusting a hydrocarbon extraction activity according to the presence of hydrocarbons, the quality of hydrocarbons, or any combination thereof, determined from the 2D depositional model (Paragraph [0046])
Regarding claims 3 and 13. Algheryafi further teaches: receiving a core sample (Paragraph [0028], extracting core samples]; and generating the core description from the core sample, including the plurality of lithofacies (Paragraph [0028], facies data).
Algheryafi does not explicitly teach: the core description including at least one sequence
boundary. However, as discussed above, Catuneanu teaches: core data used to identify stratal stacking patterns and bounding surfaces and sequence boundary (Abstract; Part one-Concepts, pages 175-192; pages pg. 233 left column, lines 1-10). 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 Algheryafi with the teachings of Catuneanu, namely receiving a core sample; and generating the core description from the core sample, including the plurality of lithofacies and the at least one sequence boundary in order to make an accurate depositional model.
Regarding claim 6. Thorne teaches: classifying the predecessors for each lithofacies includes a direct predecessor classification (Fig. 2 transition probability matrix; Paragraphs [0017]-[0018]. immediate predecessor relation with sandstone and shale; Paragraph [0025] probability of each facies calculated).
8. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algheryafi, US-PGPUB 2022/0082729 in view of Catuneanu, “Sequence Stratigraphy: Methodology and Nomenclature,” Newsletters on Stratigraphy, Vol. 44/3 (2011) and Thorne, US-PGPUB 2013/0325350 and further in view of Li et al. US-PGPUB 20200308934 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 4 and 15. The modified Algheryafi does not teach a plurality of depositional model sets which each represent a possible outcome of a different lithofacies distribution.
Li teaches: collections of models that represent facies-stacking patterns for a well, based on observed data (Paragraph [0038]; Fig. 3; Paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Li in the modified Algheryafi and have a plurality of depositional model sets which each represent a possible outcome of a different lithofacies distribution, so as to produce a plurality of models to further evaluate for accuracy.
9. Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algheryafi, US-PGPUB 2022/0082729 in view of Catuneanu, “Sequence Stratigraphy: Methodology and Nomenclature,” Newsletters on Stratigraphy, Vol. 44/3 (2011) and Thorne (US-PGPUB, 20130325350, and Timms et al. “Sedimentary facies analysis, mineralogy and diagenesis of the Mesozoic aquifers of the central Perth Basin Western Australia, Marine and petroleum Geology, (2015) (hereinafter Timms).
Regarding claims 7 and 11. Thorne teaches: determining a probability for a presence of the predecessors for each lithofacies of the plurality of lithofacies (Paragraph [0025], probability of each facies calculated).
The modified Algheryafi does not teach visualizing generation of the depositional ordering models via plotting of the probability for the presence of the predecessors for each lithofacies of the plurality of lithofacies using a circle of probabilities plot.
Timms teaches visualizing proportion of different core lithofacies in a formation via a
circle of probabilities plot (pg. 63; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Timms in the modified Algheryafi and have visualizing generation of the depositional ordering models via plotting of the probability for the presence of the predecessors for each lithofacies of the plurality of lithofacies using a circle of probabilities plot in order to assist in making a depositional model.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algheryafi, US-PGPUB 2022/0082729 in view of Catuneanu, “Sequence Stratigraphy: Methodology and Nomenclature,” Newsletters on Stratigraphy, Vol. 44/3 (2011) and Thorne, US-PGPUB 2013/0325350, and further view of Ghayour et al. US-PGPUB 20170107797 (hereinafter Ghayour).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Algheryafi and Catuneanu render obvious the methods of claim 1. As discussed above, the combination of Algheryafi and Catuneanu render obvious the construction of the 2D depositional model.
The modified Algheryafi does not disclose construction of the 2D depositional model incorporates hydrodynamic references for sea level.
Ghayour teaches construction of a depositional model incorporates hydrodynamic
references for sea level (Paragraph [0020], sea level incorporation into depositional model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Ghayour in the modified Algheryafi and perform construction of the 2D depositional model that incorporates hydrodynamic references for sea level in order to allow better understanding of the depositional history of the subsurface rock formation to improve identification of potential hydrocarbon reservoirs (Paragraph [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12. For the 103 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Catuneanu teaches defining the at least one sequence boundary received as part of the core description (Abstract; Part one-Concepts, pages 175-192; pages pg. 233 left column, lines 1-10), aligning the plurality of lithofacies within each sequence defined by the at least one sequence boundary (Fig. 31, page 206; Fig. 46, page 224)
13. For the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of “constructing a 2D depositional model”.
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “constructing a 2D depositional model” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101 on its own.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “constructing a 2D depositional model” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
Processor, memory and various modules, but said limitations are merely directed to a general-purpose processors and memory for processing the collected data and storing the resulting processed data that are also well-understood, routine and conventional.
The claims additionally recite “a hydrocarbon extraction module operable to generate control information for an operation of hydrocarbon extraction equipment,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is merely an insignificant post-solution activity, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional, and without a particular end use (see Univ of Utah Research Found. vs Ambry Genetics Corp, F774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (2014), Id., at 1245) and Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Id., at 674)
Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information (unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation). In fact, the claims in the instant application do not even recite any sensors.
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with a processor and memory, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said processor and memory as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “constructing a 2D depositional model”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use processor and memory as tools. In other words, the Applicant is basically claiming the algorithm itself.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology under the practical application. At most, the claim is an improvement in the abstract idea of “constructing a 2D depositional model”. However, as had been noted above, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible.
Finally, limiting the claims to the technological environment of hydrocarbon exploration, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “constructing a 2D depositional model”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights