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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amended claims filed on 6/17/2026, wherein:
Claims 1-4 have been amended; and
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s substitute specification resolves the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the previous 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-4 resolves the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite; and the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method for data analog identification which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Mental Processes such as concepts performed in the human mind, and Mathematical Concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-4 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of: data analog identification. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A data analog identification method comprising the following steps: a) determining a Knowledge Well Index (KWI) and a Knowledge Quality Index (KQI) for data associated with oil fields; b) Identifying an analogous relationship between the oil field using population statistics methods, including determining a Knowledge Analogy Index (KAI); c) comparing data associated with a first oil field to data associated with other oil fields from available data; and d) using the identified analogous relationship between the oil fields for geological characterization of at least one reservoir of the oil fields. Independent claim 1, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Mental Processes, since they recite concepts that may be performed in the human mind. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims fail to recite any additional elements including generic computer components, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a mental process and/or a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the independent claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4 recite similar limitations as independent claim 1; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims also fail to recite any similar additional elements. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, concepts that can be performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1, does not recite any additional elements. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification fails to reveal what structure may be used to execute the claimed method. Hence, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-4 also fail to recite similar additional elements as the independent claims. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to recite any additional elements. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited independent claims fail to recite any additional elements other than the claimed abstract idea.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-13, and 15-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claims fail to include any additional elements to perform the claimed limitations and only include the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent claim 1 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is US 12380261 to Ben-Zvi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ben-Zvi), US 7162463 to Wentland et al. (hereinafter referred to as Wentland), and US 12241338 to Bayraktar et al. (hereinafter referred to as Bayraktar). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claim 1. For independent claim 1, the prior art of Ben-Zvi, Wentland, and Bayraktar specifically do not disclose: “A data analog identification method comprising the following steps: a) determining a Knowledge Well Index (KWI) and a Knowledge Quality Index (KQI) for data associated with oil fields; and b) Identifying an analogous relationship between the oil field using population statistics methods, including determining a Knowledge Analogy Index (KAI)”. Dependent claims 2-4 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 have been fully considered by the Examiner. Applicant’s arguments and amended claims have been considered with respect to the rejection of the specification pursuant to 35 U.S.C 112(a), and rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C 112(b); and the objection of claim 6 and the previous objection is withdrawn. As indicated in the above final rejection, Applicant’s amendments of the specification and the claims resolve the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and therefore the rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The Applicant argues that under Prong 1 of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims do not belong under the abstract categories of Mental Processes such as concepts performed in the human mind, and Mathematical Concepts. The Applicant further states on pages 5-7 of their remarks, that the limitations of the independent claims under Prong 2 of Step 2A are indicative of integration into a practical application because they recite an additional element or combination of elements that amount to an improvement to the technical field of reservoir evaluation and geological characterization. Applicant argues that the claimed limitations for determining the geological characterization of an oil field reservoir increase reliability of reservoir evaluation and ensures more effective use of available data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations do not recite any of the groupings of abstract ideas. Under Prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, the claims do fall under the abstract idea of Mental Processes such as concepts performed in the human mind, and Mathematical Concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculation, but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite Mental Processes such as concepts performed in the human mind, and Mathematical Concepts. Performing calculations to determine a Knowledge Well Index and Knowledge Quality Index to determine a relationship between oil fields using statistics is both a Mental Process and a Mathematical Concept.
Examiner also respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A of the PEG. Performing calculations to determine a Knowledge Well Index and Knowledge Quality Index to determine a relationship between oil fields using statistics for geological characterization is not an improvement in technology in accordance with the MPEP. MPEP §2106.05(a) emphasis added states: “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: […] iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; […]”. The Applicant’s claims also do not include any additional elements or generic computer components used to perform the claimed abstract idea. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. There is no improvement to any technology or technical field. Therefore, the claimed limitations do not meet the criteria or considerations as indicative of integration into a practical application; and the rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights