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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/17/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/14/2022, wherein:
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, and with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the KAI index" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the total number of records from the z-score equation (1) for comparison between populations with n>30" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations: “the z values”, “the z-scores” "the similarity degree…”, “the user”, and “the z-scores determination table”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations: “the properties”, "the similarity degree”, “the user”, “the Z estimated”, “the area”, and “the null hypothesis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The rejections that follow are interpreted in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections discussed above.
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 1-4 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: DATA ANALOG IDENTIFICATION METHOD, characterized by comprising the following steps: a) Determining KWI and KQI distribution quality indices of data in oil fields; b) Identifying analogy in data through population statistics methods, with definition of the KAI index; c) Comparing oil field with other oil fields from available data. 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 recited 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) Determining KWI and KQI distribution quality indices of data in oil fields; and b) Identifying analogy in data through population statistics methods, with definition of the KAI index”. Dependent claims 2-4 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson et al. (US 6826483) teaches a petroleum reservoir simulation and characterization system and method.
Ben-Zvi et al. (US12380261) teaches an apparatus and method for oil production forecasting.
Wentland et al. (US 7162463) teaches pattern recognition template construction applied to oil exploration and production.
Bayraktar et al. (US 12241338) teaches geological analog recommendation workflow using representative embeddings.
Hou et al. (US 11037084) teaches a method and apparatus for evaluating exploitation value of a geological resource.
Bukhanov et al. (US 2025/0005485) teaches a performance-focused similarity analysis process utilizing geological and production data.
Zhang (CN 119357690B) teaches oil and gas reservoir analog similarity calculation method based on statistical test.
Hou et al. (US 20050071365) teaches a method for keyword correlation analysis
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 2/11/2026