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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/26 has been entered.
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:
In the applicant’s 04/13/26 response, independent claims 1 and 7 have been amended to include the following limitation:
assessing data quality per geographic locations, by comparing governance, availability, and security scores of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir against predetermined minimum thresholds for each data type for each data type to identify data types requiring improvement
Here, the phrase “for each data type” is repeated. It is unclear whether this is an accidental repetition, or whether both “for each data type” were meant to be present. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will construe that the limitation should instead state:
assessing data quality per geographic locations, by comparing governance, availability, and security scores of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir against predetermined minimum thresholds for each data type, to identify data types requiring improvement
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 04/13/26 response, independent claims 1 and 7 have been amended to include the following limitations:
assessing data quality per geographic locations, by comparing governance, availability, and security scores of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir against predetermined minimum thresholds for each data type for each data type to identify data types requiring improvement
determining, from the data quality per geographic locations, a portion of the geographic locations and data types where additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir are available to be performed to improve data maturity
The examiner could not find support for the details of these limitations in the applicant’s disclosure.
In the applicant’s original specification, the examiner only found one instance of the word, “threshold,” which was found in paragraph 0086, which states, “Thresholds used to make computational determinations can be statically, dynamically, or both statically and dynamically determined.”
Similarly, in the applicant’s original specification, the examiner only found one 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 or field properties of a subsurface reservoir can to be performed to improve data maturity.”
Neither of these instances appear to disclose the details of the first amended claim limitation.
While the applicant’s figure 3A arguably discloses quality, governance, availability, and security scores, it does not appear to disclose comparing the scores to a threshold “per geographic locations.”
Similarly, with respect to the second amended limitation, while paragraph 0040 discloses identifying geographic locations or data types where additional estimates and measurements of field properties of a subsurface reservoir can be performed to improve data maturity, it does not appear to disclose determining geographic locations “and” data types. It also does not appear to disclose performing identification “from the data quality per geographic locations.”
The examiner requests that the applicant demonstrate where the claimed limitations are supported in the applicant’s disclosure. In the applicant’s 04/13/26 arguments, the applicant has contended that the art does not teach the claimed limitations. 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
As previously discussed, the applicant’s 09/02/25 amendments have overcome the previous 101 rejection.
The limitation of, “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 determined geographic locations or of the determined data types” effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)) under step 2A, prong two of the 101 eligibility analysis.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are not directed to a judicial exception and qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maheshwari et al (US PgPub 20160104076) in view of Short et al (US PgPub 20180298746) and Prabhakar et al (US PgPub 20200175445).
With respect to claim 1, Maheshwari et al discloses:
generating estimates and measurements of properties (figure 10AF, reference 10110 discloses “receive and store machine data”; figure 77, reference 7201 discloses receiving data; paragraph 0478 discloses receiving data from sensors, which suggests generating estimates and measurements of properties)
cataloging data types of the estimates and measurements of properties (paragraph 0478 states, “The types of machines or entities from which block 10110 may receive machine data are wide and varied and may include computers of all kinds, network devices, storage devices, virtual machines, servers, embedded processors, intelligent machines, intelligent appliances, sensors, telemetry, and any other kind or category of data generating device as may be discussed within this document or appreciated by one of skill in the art.”)
developing key performance indicators for each data type (figure 47A, reference 4751 states, “Identify one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) for one or more services to be monitored via a service-monitoring dashboard.”; Maheshwari discloses many teachings of key performance indicators throughout its disclosure, including in paragraphs 0231, 0240, 0267, 0282, 0289, and 0294)
developing rules for each data type (paragraph 0059 discloses “an example of a GUI of a service monitoring system for specifying multiple rules …”; paragraph 0560 states, “A service definition can include multiple sets of filter criteria corresponding to different rules.”)
updating a database storing the estimates and measurements of properties (paragraph 0235 states, “Implementations of the present disclosure can determine the relationships between the entities and services based on changes … and can update … to reflect any adjustments made …”; paragraph 0474 states, “A service monitoring system of some embodiments may include the capability to practice methods to automatically update information …”)
assessing estimates and measurements of properties for each data type to identify data types requiring improvement (paragraph 0728 states, “The KPI value may be indicative of a performance assessment for the service …”; paragraph 0735 states, “performance of a service can be assessed using a KPI’s values that may change over time.” Paragraph 0265 states, “By including the aggregation period … multiple KPIs can be run … improving the utility of defined thresholds.”)
With respect to claim 1, Maheshwari et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
A method for hydrocarbon exploration of a subsurface reservoir based on assessing the maturity of data on the subsurface reservoir
generating estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir including well, seismic, core, logs, tops, reports, reservoir, and geospatial data
cataloging data types of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir based on data proponent, data users, data sources and data format
determining data types of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the data types include well data, sub-surface data, surface geology data, geophysical data, and geospatial data
developing quality, governance, availability, and security rules for each data type
updating a database storing the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir
assessing data quality per geographic locations, by comparing governance, availability, and security scores of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir against predetermined minimum thresholds for each data type, to identify data types requiring improvement
determining, from the data quality per geographic locations, a portion of the geographic locations and data types where additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir are available to be performed to improve data maturity
performing exploration activities comprising drilling wells, performing seismic surveys, or implementing enhanced oil recovery techniques to provide additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir at the determined geographic locations or of the determined data types
With respect to claim 1, Short et al discloses:
A method for hydrocarbon exploration of a subsurface reservoir based on assessing the maturity of data on the subsurface reservoir (paragraphs 0002-0004 state, “A resource field can be an accumulation, pool or group of pools of one or more resources (e.g., oil, gas, oil and gas) in a subsurface environment … Field planning can occur over one or more phases, which can include an exploration phase that aims to identify and assess and environment …” The claims do not define “maturity,” but the fact that the data is used over a period of time for assessment purposes will be construed to anticipate “maturity.”)
generating estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir including well, seismic, core, logs, tops, reports, reservoir, and geospatial data (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari discloses a general technique and interface that can be applied to a wide variety of data contexts. Short discloses a specific data interface context in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the principles of Maheshwari would be obvious to apply. For example, Short discloses estimates and measurements (paragraph 0045) of properties of the subsurface reservoir (paragraph 0002) including well (abstract), seismic (paragraph 0046), core (paragraph 0246), logs (paragraph 0246), tops (figure 18; paragraph 0247), reports (paragraph 0189), reservoir (paragraph 0045), and geospatial data (paragraphs 0045 and 0247).)
cataloging data types of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir based on data proponent, data users, data sources and data format (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari discloses a general technique and interface that can be applied to a wide variety of data contexts. Short discloses a specific data interface context in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the principles of Maheshwari would be obvious to apply. Paragraph 0121 of Short states, “A system may utilize one or more servers, one or more client devices, etc. and may maintain one or more databases, data files, etc …” Cataloging data types based on general data concepts, such as data proponents, data users, data sources, and data format are obvious in view of the database and storage teachings of Short.)
determining data types of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the data types include well data, sub-surface data, surface geology data, geophysical data, and geospatial data (obvious in view of the database and data processing principles of Short, when viewed through the context of the vast and diverse drilling and wellbore data presented by Short.)
developing quality, governance, availability, and security rules for each data type (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari discloses a general technique and interface that can be applied to a wide variety of data contexts. Short discloses a specific data interface context in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the principles of Maheshwari would be obvious to apply. Please note that Short considers quality (paragraph 0216), governance (paragraph 0167 discloses management services), availability (paragraph 0216), and security (paragraph 0170). As discussed above, Maheshwari discloses developing rules for a variety of contexts.)
updating a database storing the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari discloses a general technique and interface that can be applied to a wide variety of data contexts. Short discloses a specific data interface context in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the principles of Maheshwari would be obvious to apply.)
performing exploration activities comprising drilling wells, performing seismic surveys, or implementing enhanced oil recovery techniques to provide additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir at the determined geographic locations or of the determined data types (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari discloses a general technique and interface that can be applied to a wide variety of data contexts. Short discloses a specific data interface context in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the principles of Maheshwari would be obvious to apply. Short specifically discloses exploration (see paragraphs 0004, 0129, and 0138). Short also discloses seismic survey (paragraph 0136). Short also discloses drilling throughout its disclosure.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Short et al into the invention of Maheshwari et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of providing versatile adaptive thresholding technology to a rig operations information system.
With respect to claim 1, Prabhakar et al discloses:
assessing data quality per geographic locations, by comparing governance, availability, and security scores of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir against predetermined minimum thresholds for each data type, to identify data types requiring improvement (Prabhakar paragraph 0030 states, “a score value may be assigned that is indicative of the data quality of the stored data proportional to a threshold.” Paragraph 0025 states, “the data historian may record data over time from one or more locations for analysis.” Paragraphs 0016 and 0033-0034 disclose governance. Paragraphs 0005 and 0034 disclose availability. Paragraphs 0034 and 0102 disclose security. The claimed limitation is obvious in view of applying the broad principles of Prabhakar et al to modified Maheshwari et al.)
determining, from the data quality per geographic locations, a portion of the geographic locations and data types where additional estimates and measurements of field properties of the subsurface reservoir are available to be performed to improve data maturity (obvious in view of combination; paragraph 0025 of Prabhakar et al states, “the data historian may record data over time from one or more locations for analysis.” Both Maheshwari et al and Prabhakar et al disclose using KPIs that can help improve data maturity.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Prabhakar et al into the invention of Maheshwari et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of improving operational efficiencies.
Independent claim 7 represents a broader version of independent claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claims 2 and 8, Maheshwari et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising incorporating estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir into the database and performing quality assurance / quality control review of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir (obvious in view of combination; paragraph 0308 of Short discloses quality control)
With respect to claims 3 and 9, Maheshwari et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein assessing the quality, governance, availability, and security of the estimates and measurements of properties of the subsurface reservoir comprises assigning a first score representing the quality, a second score representing the governance, a third score representing the availability, and a fourth score representing the security for single data type (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari et al discloses both individual scores (paragraph 0248) and aggregate scores (paragraph 0282). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the scoring principles of Maheshwari et al and the context of Short.)
With respect to claims 4 and 10, Maheshwari et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising averaging all rules for one data type to provide a score for that data type (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari discloses applying statistical functions, such as average, to its data (see, for example, paragraphs 0241, 0580, 0587, 0595, and 0627). The claimed limitation is mathematically obvious.)
With respect to claims 5 and 11, Maheshwari et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising averaging all data types belonging to an organization to provide a score for that organization (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari discloses applying statistical functions, such as average, to its data (see, for example, paragraphs 0241, 0580, 0587, 0595, and 0627). The claimed limitation is mathematically obvious.)
With respect to claims 6 and 12, Maheshwari et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein developing quality, governance, availability, and security rules for each data type comprises identifying at least one master repository for each data type (obvious in view of combination; Maheshwari paragraph 1355 states, “The KPI values derived over time may be stored to build a valuable repository of current and historical performance information for the service …” Storing data in a repository would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al (US PgPub 20100107244) discloses trust event notification and actions based on thresholds and associated trust metadata scores.
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 on (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 05/02/26
Prosecution Insights