DETAILED ACTION
Claims 12-20. Cancelled.
Drawings
Previous objection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 01/14/2026.
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 1-11 and 21-29 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.
Claims recite “the fracture-driven interaction event indicating loss of production at the parent well from fracturing of the active child well, and reduce the loss of production at the parent well from the fracturing of the active child well based on detection of the fracture driven interaction event,” and “wherein the loss of production at the parent well from the fracturing of the active child well comprises end of the production at the parent well and reducing the loss of production at the parent well comprises preventing the end of the production at the parent well,” but said limitations are not supported in the original disclosure.
Specifically, the original disclosure discloses the following Paragraph [0055] (part of which is reproduced below), the only paragraph that discloses “loss of production”:
PNG
media_image1.png
376
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above paragraph, the original disclosure broadly discloses that the potential use of the disclosed technology may be used to reduce the loss production outcome impact, but does not further disclose anything about loss of production at the parent well, end of the production at the parent well and preventing the end of the production at the parent well anywhere.
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 1-11 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “obtain wellbore production data corresponding to the subsurface volume of interest, generate a trend of the wellbore production data by applying a filter to the wellbore production data, generate threshold parameters based on the wellbore production data, wherein the threshold parameters are used to set boundaries on the wellbore production data, generate fracture-driven interaction candidate data for a parent well by applying the trend and the threshold parameters to the subsurface data, wherein the fracture-driven interaction candidate data is a subset of the wellbore production data that exceed the ranges generated by the threshold parameters, identify an active child well in a threshold spatial region around the parent well corresponding to a coincident time of the fracture-driven interaction candidate data for the parent well, identify potentially interactive wellbore production data corresponding to the active child well during the coincident time; and detect the fracture-driven interaction event based on the potentially interactive wellbore production data and the fracture-driven interaction candidate data,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to a combination of mental process (e.g. generating threshold parameters, generate candidate data, identifying an active child, etc.) and usage of mathematical concept (e.g. filtering and trending). Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. Note that as further example, the limitations “rolling standard deviations…” in the dependent claims are recitation of mathematical concept. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additional recite “non-transitory medium, physical computer processor,” but said limitations are merely directed to general-purpose computer and memory for implementing the abstract idea. The claims also recite “generate, on the graphical user interface, a representation….” and display, via the graphical user interface, the representation,” but said limitations are merely insignificant post-solution activity of displaying the desired data obtained from the implementation of the abstract idea. Additionally, the limitation “reduce the loss of production at the parent well from the fracturing of the active child well based on detection of the fracture driven interaction event,” and “wherein the loss of production at the parent well from the fracturing of the active child well comprises end of the production at the parent well and reducing the loss of production at the parent well comprises preventing the end of the production at the parent well,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to applying the abstract idea in broad manner without particular end use. The claims do not improve any machines, and do not improve other technology, as the claimed invention is at most an improved abstract idea of detecting fracture-driven interactions. However, new or improved abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additional recite “non-transitory medium, physical computer processor,” but said limitations are merely directed to general-purpose computer and memory for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “generate, on the graphical user interface, a representation….” and display, via the graphical user interface, the representation,” but said limitations are merely insignificant post-solution activity of displaying the desired data obtained from the implementation of the abstract idea, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. Additionally, the limitation “reduce the loss of production at the parent well from the fracturing of the active child well based on detection of the fracture driven interaction event,” and “wherein the loss of production at the parent well from the fracturing of the active child well comprises end of the production at the parent well and reducing the loss of production at the parent well comprises preventing the end of the production at the parent well,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to applying the abstract idea in broad manner without particular end use, which therefore would not be considered significantly more to transform the claimed invention to patent-eligible application (see Univ of Utah Research Found. vs Ambry Genetics Corp, F774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (2014), Id., at 1245) and Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Id., at 674). As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of “detecting fracture-driven interactions in a subsurface volume of interest”.
Here, we start by noting that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “detecting fracture-driven interactions in a subsurface volume of interest” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, we further note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “detecting fracture-driven interactions in a subsurface volume of interest” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
various limitations as shown above, but said limitations are insignificant post-solution activity of displaying the desired data, usage of general-purpose computer and applying the abstract idea in a broad manner without particular end use, that are well-understood, routine and conventional.
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with the recitation of processor and graphical user interface, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said machines (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “detecting fracture-driven interactions in a subsurface volume of interest”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those machines as tools. In other words, the Applicant is basically claiming the algorithm itself.
Furthermore, the claims do not improve other technology. At most, the claimed invention is an improvement in the abstract idea of “detecting fracture-driven interactions in a subsurface volume of interest.” However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract idea, and not eligible.
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “detecting fracture-driven interactions in a subsurface volume of interest”, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857