DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/148,495. In response to Examiner’s action, mail dated October 1, 2025, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments, mail dated November 11, 2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 9, 14 and 17. Claims 2, 6, 7, and 10 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-17 are pending, see below.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 06, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-17 are pending in this application. The claims 1, 9, 14 and 17 are amended.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the pending claims are not persuasive. The claims 1, 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding prior art. The claims seemed allowable. An updated prior art search was completed in light of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
On pages 11-18 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of the independent claims 1, 9, and 14 and those claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant submits
Step 1: Claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Applicant notes that, as acknowledged by the office Action, independent claims 1, 9, and 14 are directed to a method, and Satisfy Step 1.
Examiner respectfully agrees. At Step 1 the claims are directed to a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims are not directed to a judicial exception.
Applicant respectfully submits that the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mathematical process or organizing human behavior is an overly board characterization of claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mathematical process is an overbroad characterization of claim 1 that fails to consider the claim as a whole.
Applicant explains “that simultaneous processing analysis, or solving may generally mean that components are considered together in a single analysis as opposed to sequential analysis.
Applicant submits “parallel processing” provides the benefits of “reduced consumption” and “spe[d] up computation time”
Applicant submits claim 1 is directed to paten-eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Step2A prong one arguments. Claims 1, 3-5, 8 in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios. The claims 1, 3-5, 8 recite a mathematical concept which is an abstract concept. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 8 reciting an abstract concept are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception.
Applicant submits that the present claims integrate such alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible, computer-readable mediums that utilizing multiple real-world systems and improved computer operations are useful and embody a practical application.
On page 17 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues claim 40 referencing “approach may allow for granular accuracy and efficiency depending on available computational time and resources” and “may delay the accurate modeling under the later stages of the optimization”.
Applicant argues even if the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, the claimed invention provides a specific, identifiable improvement to the efficiency and accuracy of the computer technology which “integrates judicial exception into a practical application [that] … imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. – See MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent eligible subject matter, and requests that the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Step 2A prong two arguments. Although reciting a complex mathematical algorithm, the claims are using a processor to conduct the complex calculation.
Regarding SME Guidance Example 40, adaptive monitoring of network traffic data, is rooted in computer networking. In Example 40, the claims recite additional elements that are specific to computer technology. Furthermore, the Example 40 claims analyze abnormal conditions, which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. Hence, the instant application claims are not similar to Example 40 teaching improvements to internet traffic, because the Applicant is using mathematical calculations to determine a facility placement, for the purposes of planning optimized earth resource production, at optimized costs.
Examiner contends the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources is broad and high level. Examiner submits, the Applicant’s claims recite computational variables and metrics/data and use computational resources, computing time, and processing power. As recited these elements are data. Examiner interpreted the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources and data of processing power measurements as mathematical concepts, and thus, are abstract concepts.
Regarding well placement, pipeline placement, and facility placement, these additional elements are variables used in the complex computation.
Regarding a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, which is a complex mathematical algorithm, this is a mathematical concept. As recited, PSO is an algorithm that uses the computer to complete the calculations.
Regarding the limitations “… a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major…”, this further supports Examiner’s argument of the claims reciting, a complex mathematical calculation.
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements beyond the additional elements that are recited in the independent claims.
Revised Step 2B: Claims provide an inventive concept.
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of these elements, when viewed as a whole, provides significant benefits that provide an improvement to layout determination technology. Indeed, as discussed in the Application, the "present embodiments provide a more efficient analysis that reduces the amount of processing power employed by computing systems tasked to identify suitable components, component placement, and connectivity components within a hydrocarbon site. In other words, other optimization schemes are limited by certain memory and computational parameters of existing computing systems to provide useful facilities recommendations for hydrocarbon site planning operations." Application [0086]. Such improvements in the modularity and flexibility of the planning systems facilitate improved solutions that are capable of being identified using the available computational resources. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 does not simply recite subject matter within the judicial exceptions without significantly more and, therefore, is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant further submits that, as claims 9 and 14 have been amended similarly to claim 1, such claims, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 14 and those claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims when considered as a whole are merely applying a computer to the abstract concept. - See MPEP 2106.05 (f). The Applicant’s claims are applying a computer and computative values gathered from nodes or logical layers to calculate scenarios that are optimizing planning scenarios. As explained in step 2A prong 2.
Regarding the argument of an improvement. Although the claims are improving costs, they are not improving the technical solution that is would amount to significantly more.
Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
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, 3-5, 8 are method.
Claims 9, 11-13 are method.
Claims 14-17 are method.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites, “… receiving, … , input data comprising geological data associated with an area, and an indication … to be placed in the layout, … comprising a plurality of logical layers arranged hierarchically, each logical layer including…, a first logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including … a second logical layer of the plurality of logical … between two logical layers of the plurality of logical layers, and one or more well trajectories … , wherein the layout includes … in each of the plurality of logical layers and a location of each of the plurality of nodes in each of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the location … is random within an associated layer of the plurality of logical layers; identifying available … computing time and…; identifying, for each of a plurality of planning scenarios to generate the layout based on the plurality of logical layers, a plurality of computational complexities to determine the layout using an associated planning scenario, wherein the plurality of planning scenarios are pre-determined and include well placement of …, facility placement of …, pipeline placement of the one or more pipelines, and well trajectory design of the one or more well trajectories, and wherein the plurality of planning scenarios include: a first planning scenario in which the well placement, the facility placement, the pipeline placement, and the well trajectory design are performed sequentially, wherein the first planning scenario has a first computational complexity; a second planning scenario in which the facility placement and the pipeline placement are performed simultaneously and sequentially with the well placement and the well trajectory design, wherein the second planning scenario has a second computational complexity greater than the first computational complexity; a third planning scenario… , and the well trajectory design are performed simultaneously and sequentially …, wherein the third planning scenario has a third computational complexity greater than the second computational complexity; and a fourth planning scenario… , and the well trajectory design are performed simultaneously, wherein the fourth planning scenario has a fourth computational complexity greater than the third computational complexity; selecting, … and based on … one of the plurality of computational complexities that is less than … one of the plurality of planning scenarios to implement in determining the layout; generating a cost map for … , the cost map including a plurality of physical layers, a first physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including the geological data, a second physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including topological information and a cost estimate for the well placement, the facility placement, the pipeline placement, and the well trajectory design; in response to selecting the third planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios, applying … algorithm to the plurality of logical layers and the plurality of physical layers to generate a first solution, wherein … algorithm iteratively processes, using a plurality of loops including a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major loop includes the well placement and the plurality of minor loops include … and the well trajectory design, a plurality of particles to arrive at a convergence layout based on the plurality of particles, each particle of the plurality of particles representative of a potential layout, wherein the plurality of minor loops are processed in parallel using … and the first solution includes the convergence layout, and wherein the potential layout of each particle of the plurality of particles is determined by: based on a first algorithm, the geological data, and the cost map, determining a set of well placements for the one or more wells via the major loop; and after determining the set of well placements, and based on a second algorithm using the cost map, independent of determining the set of well placements, simultaneously determining, via the plurality of minor loops processed in parallel: a set of facility placements …, a set of well trajectories for the one or more wells, and a set of pipeline placements for the one or more pipelines, the set of pipeline placements identifying a path between the two or more facilities based on a third algorithm and a graphical topology of the geological data weighted by costs associated with placing the one or more pipelines at respective portions of the area; determining whether the first solution is viable responsive to the first solution being viable, retrieving receiving updated cost factors information to reflect current conditions; updating the cost map to an updated cost map based on the current conditions updated cost factors; and using the third scenario, responsive to the updated cost factors and the first solution being viable, selecting the fourth planning scenario and simultaneously updating the set of well placements, the set of facility placements, the set of well trajectories, and independently updating the set of pipeline placements based on the updated cost map and the current conditions, resulting in an updated solution.” Claims 1, 3-5, 8 in view of the claim limitations, the claims recite the abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios, and thus, the claims 1, 3-5, 8 recite a mathematical concept, therefore claims 1, 3-5, 8 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Claim 9 recites, “… receiving, … , input data comprising geological data associated with an area and an indication of … to be placed in the layout, … comprising a plurality of logical layers arranged hierarchically, each logical layer including … , a first logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including one or more wells, a second logical layer of the plurality of logical layers … between two logical layers of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the layout includes a number of the plurality of nodes in each of the plurality of logical layers and a location of each of the plurality of nodes in each of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the location of each of the plurality of nodes is random within an associated layer of the plurality of logical layers; identifying available … computing time and processing power; generating a cost map …, the cost map including a plurality of physical layers, a first layer of the plurality of physical layers including the geological data, a second physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including topological information and a cost estimate … and … design; selecting, based … and a plurality of computational complexities of a plurality of planning scenarios, a first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios; using the first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios and the cost map, … to the plurality of logical layers and the plurality of physical layers to generate the first solution, wherein … iteratively processes, using a plurality of loops including a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major loop includes … the plurality of minor loops include the facility placement, the pipeline placement, and the well trajectory design, a plurality of particles to arrive at a convergence layout based on the plurality of particles, each particle of the plurality of particles representative of a potential layout, wherein the plurality of minor loops are processed in parallel … and wherein each particle is determined by simultaneously determining … based on the geological data, … , and a first algorithm; determining whether the first solution is viable responsive to the first solution being viable, retrieving receiving updated cost factors information to reflect current conditions; updating the cost map to an updated cost map based on the current conditions updated cost factors; and responsive to the updated cost factors and the first solution being viable, selecting a second using the selected planning scenario and simultaneously updating … the set of well trajectories, and independently updating the set of pipeline placements based on the updated cost map and the current conditions.…”. Claims 9-13 in view of the claim limitations, the claims recite an abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios , and thus, the claims 9-13 recite a mathematical concept, therefore claims 9-13 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
The claim 14 recites, “… receiving, …input data comprising geological data associated with an area and an indication of a set of components to be placed in the layout, the set of components comprising a plurality of logical layers arranged hierarchically, each logical layer including … , a first logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including … a second logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including … between two logical layers of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the layout includes a number of the plurality of nodes in each of the plurality of logical layers and a location of each of the plurality of nodes in each of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the location of each of the plurality of nodes is random within an associated layer of the plurality of logical layers; identifying … for a first solution, … including computing time …; and generating a cost map … , the cost map including a plurality of physical layers, a first layer of the plurality of physical layers including the geological data, a second physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including topological information and a cost estimate …, and well trajectory design; selecting, based … and a plurality of computational complexities of a plurality of planning scenarios, a first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios; using the first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios and the cost map, applying … algorithm to the plurality of logical layers and the plurality of physical layers to generate the first solution, wherein the … algorithm iteratively processes, using a plurality of loops including a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major loop includes … and the plurality of minor loops include … , and the well trajectory design, a plurality of particles to arrive at a convergence layout based on the plurality of particles, each particle of the plurality of particles representative of a potential layout, wherein the plurality of minor loops are processed in parallel… , and wherein each particle is determined by simultaneously determining a set of facility placements … based on the geological data, the indication of … and a first algorithm; determining whether the first solution is viable responsive to the first solution being viable, retrieving receiving updated cost factors information to reflect current conditions; updating the cost map to an updated cost map based on the current conditions updated cost factors; and responsive to the updated cost factors and the first solution being viable, selecting a second using the selected planning scenario and simultaneously updating … the set of well trajectories, and independently updating … based on the updated cost map and the current conditions…”. Claims 14-17 in view of the claim limitations recite an abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios , and thus, the claims 14-17 recite a mathematical concept, therefore claims 14-17 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims 1, 9, and 14 recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of:
“A method for determining a layout for a hydrocarbon production site, comprising”
“via a processor”,
“a set of components”,
“a plurality of nodes”,
“one or more wells,”
“layers including two or more facilities, one or more pipelines”,
“the one or more wells and at least one of the two or more facilities”,
“a number of the plurality of nodes”,
“computational resources, the available computational resources”,
“processing power”,
“a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm”,
“well placement”,
” facility placement”,
“pipeline placement”,
“parallel processing on a multiprocessor”;
however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
Examiner contends the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources is broad and high level. Examiner submits, the Applicant’s claims recite computational variables and metrics/data and use computational resources, computing time, and processing power. As recited these elements are data. Examiner interpreted the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources and data of processing power measurements as mathematical concepts, and thus, are abstract concepts.
Regarding well placement, pipeline placement, and facility placement, these additional elements are variables used in the complex computation.
Regarding a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, which is a complex mathematical algorithm, the claims recite a mathematical concept. As recited, PSO is an algorithm that uses the computer to complete the calculations.
Regarding the limitations “… a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major…”, this further supports Examiner’s argument of the claims reciting, a complex mathematical calculation. A complex mathematical calculation does not indicate the PSO algorithm is integrated into a practical application. The claims recite using a computer to apply the judicial exception – mathematical concept.
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements beyond the additional elements that are recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 f – mere instructions to Apply an Exception).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Although the claims disclose a complex computation in the technical field of resource mineral production, specifically, using hydrocarbon facility placement, the claims broadly recite the use computational resources and the use of a particle swarm algorithm using variables for planning scenarios. The claims are not receiving real-time input from the actual additional elements in the field during operation and correcting the scenario real-time. Instead, the claims recite the additional elements (i.e., well placement, pipeline placement) as data used within the computational resources and the use of a particle swarm algorithm to produce a cost objective. A cost objective is a business objective which is an abstract idea that is achieved through a mathematical calculation. The use of a processer to complete the complex computation resulting in a cost does not amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghorayeb WO-2023/014719 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624