DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant argues that Claim 1is not directed on its own to a mathematical concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites relationships and predictions and the specifications clearly confines the relationships and predictions to mathematical relationships and concepts (Specifications ¶ [0012-15]). Furthermore, a machine learning model is a mathematical concept.
Applicant argues claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by improving the technical field of well operations and control by allowing for quick remediation actions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application there must be a specific action performed (i.e., positively recited physical transformation) using the specific abstract idea. The current claim language does not have a specific action performed using the abstract idea. Instead, the claim language makes a determination “based on” the abstract idea. The limitation “based on” is to general and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since it does not specifically related the abstract idea to the remedial action.
Applicant argues that the claimed inventio reflects improvement in the field of data storage and retrieval. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The courts have held that general data storage and retrieval, while an additional element, are well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim language needs to be more specific in how the abstract idea is used to perform the remedial actions.
The claim objections and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to amendments.
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 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract limitations, including: “generating, based on values of the well attributes data, a relationship for predicting an annulus pressure by equating a change in volume of fluid in the well to a change in volume of a tubing casing annulus; updating the relationship based on fluid properties of the fluid; predicting a tubular casing annulus (TCA) pressure for the well based on the updated relationship; determining, based on the TCA pressure execution of a machine learning model trained with training data with training data corresponding to the well attributes data describing a physical configuration of the well, whether an anomaly is associated with the well.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the claim limitation merely requires a machine learning model “trained with training data.” The claim does not include the limitation of training the model, only a model already trained.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional element of: “receiving well attributes data describing a physical configuration of a well; and when the anomaly is associated with the well, generating one or more signals for causing one or more remedial action for the well to resolve or prevent the anomaly.”
Claim 8 recites the additional element of: at least one processor and a memory.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of: one or more non-transitory computer readable media and at least one processor.
“[R]eceiving well attributes data describing a physical configuration of a well” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[G]enerating one or more signals” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[W]hen the anomaly is associated with the well ... causing one or more remedial action for the well to resolve or prevent the anomaly” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e., “apply it”).
The functions of the processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable media are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Receiving the well attributes data and generating a signal indicative of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations of “receiving” and “transmitting” data are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, “when the anomaly is associated with the well ... causing one or more remedial action for the well to resolve or prevent the anomaly” merely amounts to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., remedial action) to an identified problem (i.e., anomalous annuli pressure conditions) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements of the processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable media). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, 16-18, and 20-21 further recite:
the well attributes data comprising a casing material type, a fluid type and quantity, temperature, and diameter;
the fluid properties comprise at least one of a compressibility and a volumetric coefficient for the fluid;
the relationship is defined as:
∆
P
=
α
f
-
α
V
∆
T
β
+
D
t
*
E
where: αf is a volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion of the fluid, αV is a volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion of the annulus, ΔT is a change in temperature; β is a compressibility factor of the fluid, -ΔP is a change in pressure of the fluid, D is a diameter of the annulus, t is a thickness of the annulus, and E is an elastic modulus of the annulus; and
the training data comprises labeled data that represents pressure build-up or decline rates for the well, a label, of the labeled data, representing a presence or absence of an anomaly associated with the pressure build-up or decline rates for the well which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
With respect to claims 12 and 19, the step of “based on the prediction of the TCA pressure for the well, causing one or more remedial actions for the well” merely amounts to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., remedial action) to an identified problem (i.e., anomalous annuli pressure conditions) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Claims 6, 13, and 20, the defining so that “the remedial action comprises at least one of a as TCA refill, a TCA lubrication, and a pressure bleed-off for the well” merely amounts to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., remedial action) to an identified problem (i.e., anomalous annuli pressure conditions) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed in relation to the abstract idea or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Specifically, the phrase “based on” does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea since it does not specifically tie the abstract idea to a specific solution/result.
“[T]he remedial action comprises at least one of a as TCA refill, a TCA lubrication, and a pressure bleed-off for the well” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Rodgers (US 3,860,067 see Col. 5, lines 7-27) discloses a remedial action comprising a pressure bleed-off of a well is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, the step of “controlling a pressure in the well, based on the predicting, wherein controlling comprises causing one or more of a pressure bleed off event and generation of a notification instructing an operator to inspect the well for leakage or blockage, the notification being transmitted to the operator” merely amounts to “apply it.” The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., controlling a pressure) to an identified problem (i.e., anomalous annuli pressure condition) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are allowable over the prior art but are rejected under 101as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or make obvious the combination of the TCA pressure prediction process, the machine learning model trained with specific data, and the remedial actions to resolve/prevent an anomaly.
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 KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights