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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings
As stated in a previous action, the drawing and specification amendments of 09/02/25 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended to include the language of, “determining-key performance indicators for each data type …” This appears to be a typographical informality, where the line deleting the word “developing” may have extended too far past the amended word. It will be construed that the claim language should state, “determining key performance indicators for each type …”
Claim 7 has deleted the period at the end of the claim. It will be construed that there should be a period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the applicant’s 07/02/26 response, independent claims 1 and 7 have been amended to include the following limitations:
developing data maturity components comprising quality, governance, availability, and security rules for each data type, using the key performance indicators, wherein the quality, the governance, the availability, and the security rules indicate areas of improvements for a respective data type to support hydrocarbon exploration and production decisions
assessing quality scores by applying rules to the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir for each data type
generating a distribution of the quality scores across geographic locations of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the distribution identifies gaps in the data maturity components
identifying a portion of the geographic locations where additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir are available to improve the data maturity components
performing exploration activities comprising drilling wells, performing seismic surveys, or implementing enhanced oil recovery technologies to provide additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir at the portion of the geographic locations
The examiner could not find support for the amended limitation of, “generating a distribution of the quality scores across geographic locations of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the distribution identifies gaps in the data maturity components” in the applicant’s disclosure.
In the applicant’s original specification, the examiner only found on instance of the phrase, “geographic locations,” which was found in paragraph 0040, which states, “For example, this assessment may identify geographic locations or data types where additional estimates and measurements of field properties of a subsurface reservoir can be performed to improve data maturity.”
The examiner did not find any teachings or support about generating a distribution of the quality scores, let alone a distribution of the quality scores across geographic locations of the subsurface reservoir. The examiner also did not find any teachings or support about generating a distribution of the quality scores, wherein the distribution identifies gaps in the data maturity components.
The only instances of “distribution” that the examiner found in the applicant’s original specification was in paragraphs 0077 (“in a distributed environment”) and 0086 (“distributed across multiple sites”). However, neither of these instances are related to a distribution of quality scores across geographic locations.
The examiner requests that the applicant demonstrate where/how the claimed limitation is supported in the applicant’s disclosure.
All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 7. They are also rejected, as a result of their dependency.
As seen below, the mentioned limitation, in the context of the limitations that surround it, was not found, taught, suggested, or disclosed in the prior art. However, the examiner must ensure that the applicant’s own disclosure itself teaches and/or supports the claimed limitations.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For reasons stated in the previous action, claims 1-12 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner’s Note - Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to independent claims 1 and 7, the following limitation(s) were not found, taught, disclosed, or suggested in the prior art. However, the claims cannot be allowed until the above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is overcome.
developing data maturity components comprising quality, governance, availability, and security rules for each data type, using the key performance indicators, wherein the quality, the governance, the availability, and the security rules indicate areas of improvements for a respective data type to support hydrocarbon exploration and production decisions
assessing quality scores by applying rules to the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir for each data type
generating a distribution of the quality scores across geographic locations of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the distribution identifies gaps in the data maturity components
identifying a portion of the geographic locations where additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir are available to be performed to improve the data maturity components
performing exploration activities comprising drilling wells, performing seismic surveys, or implementing enhanced oil recovery technologies to provide additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir at the portion of the geographic locations
As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, the limitation of, “generating a distribution of the quality scores across geographic locations of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the distribution identifies gaps in the data maturity components …” was not found, taught, suggested, or disclosed in the prior art, especially not when considered in the context of its surrounding limitations.
The currently amended claims establish a specific nexus between the data maturity components, a distribution of quality scores across geographic locations of the subsurface reservoir, gaps in the data maturity components, and exploration activities at the specific portion of geographic locations.
The closest art found during the update and interference search was Prieto Marquez (US PgPub 20190228490).
Prieto Marquez mentions the data maturing components comprising quality (paragraph 0027 discloses “low-quality information”), governance (claim 7 discloses “governance systems”), availability (paragraph 0041 discloses “increase the availability of high quality information), and security (claim 1). In paragraph 0054, Prieto Marquez also states, “this module provides with global manufacturers, technology suppliers, local distributors, and developers prioritizing solutions by scores provided by clients …”
However, Prieto Marquez does not teach developing the data maturity components using the claimed key performance indicators and rules. Prieto Marquez also does not teach a distribution of quality scores across geographic locations of a subsurface reservoir, wherein the distribution identifies gaps in the data maturity components.
Therefore, even though Prieto Marquez teaches elements of the claimed invention, it does not, either alone or in combination with other art, establish the specific claimed nexus between the data maturity components, a distribution of quality scores across geographic locations of the subsurface reservoir, gaps in the data maturity components, and exploration activities at the specific portion of geographic locations.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 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, ARLEEN M 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 09/19/26
Prosecution Insights