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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on October 10, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted below. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application. No claims are allowed.
Examination of Application
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-7: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.” In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A computer-implemented method of monitoring a stimulated reservoir volume, comprising:
a. receiving simulated stresses from a poro-elastic modeling method;
b. performing calculation of the 3D rotation of the simulated stresses to principal directions;
c. performing calculation of the temporal 3D Mohr-Coulomb (MC) failure criteria from the calculated principal stresses and the simulated pore pressure for at least some time steps to generate computed temporal MC failure criteria results to perform 3D microseismic depletion delineation to understand fracturing of and/or production from the stimulated reservoir volume;
d. generating a graphical representation of the computed temporal MC failure criteria results and
e. displaying the graphical representation on a graphical display, wherein the poro-elastic modeling method comprises: receiving simulation parameters for the stimulated reservoir volume, including lithology parameters, fluid viscosities for depletion and/or injection, and background in-situ stresses and pore pressure; and performing 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling using the simulation parameters to compute the simulated stresses and pore pressure, wherein the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling is based on a rescaling of solid rock density and fluid density parameters..
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “receiving simulated stresses from a poro-elastic modeling method”, “performing calculation of the 3D rotation of the simulated stresses to principal directions”, “performing calculation of the temporal 3D Mohr-Coulomb (MC) failure criteria from the calculated principal stresses and the simulated pore pressure for at least some time steps to generate computed temporal MC failure criteria results”, “generating a graphical representation of the computed temporal MC failure criteria results” and “displaying the graphical representation”. These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, performing calculation of “3D rotation” or “calculation of the temporal 3D Mohr-Coulomb (MC) Criteria”, see page 12, equation 17 of the instant specification). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II: This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites that the method is “computer-implemented” and includes “a graphical display.” However, the “computer-implemented” reference is merely a generic computer processing component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Further, the reciting “the graphical display” is additional element separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, this additional element is merely generic device that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of displaying the graphical representation as an output. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to analyzing the temporal 3D MC is considered a computational analysis process which leads on a human thought process.
Dependent claim 3: the instant claim is directed to generating a graphical representation of the existence or lack of fracture failure, which is outputting the result is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 4 and 5: the instant claims are directed to the use of geophones to measure strain from gas injection on the surface and in the borehole respectively which are considered data gathering processes at a highest level of generality.
Dependent claims 6 and 7: the instant claims are analogous and dependent on claim 1 of the instant application, further includes generic computer elements which are merely generic computer processing components (i.e., one or more processors, memory, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and one or more computer programs) that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which do not cause the claims as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Response to argument
Applicant's arguments filed on October 10, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted above, and further explained below.
Applicant(s) argued that “claim 1 has been amended to explicitly integrate the claim into the practical application of understanding fracturing and/or production for hydrocarbon reservoirs. Furthermore, claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations describing the poro-elastic modeling, which adds significantly more when the claim is taken as a whole. Applicant believes these points overcome the § 101 rejection and respectfully request withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1 – 7” (see argument, page 4/5, the last two paragraphs).
The instant claim as amended include “perform 3D microseismic depletion delineation to understand fracturing of and/or production from the stimulated reservoir volume” in other words, the information pertains to create “awareness” which is for the benefit of understanding and does not go beyond the abstract idea of “performing calculation of the 3D rotation”. Further, “the poro-elastic modeling method comprises: receiving simulation parameters for the stimulated reservoir volume, including lithology parameters, fluid viscosities for depletion and/or injection, and background in-situ stresses and pore pressure; and performing 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling using the simulation parameters to compute the simulated stresses and pore pressure, wherein the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling is based on a rescaling of solid rock density and fluid density parameters”
Again, the added limitation does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of displaying the graphical representation as an output. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Art of Interest
Roussel et al. (U.S. PAP 2012/0325462, hereon Roussel) discloses a method for determining an expected trajectory of induced fractures in a rock formation, analyzing net pressure associated with the induced fractures, and determining at least one of spacing of induced fractures and a property of the induced fractures based on the net pressure (see Roussel, Abstract). In order to simulate a large enough reservoir volume and avoid boundary effects the far-field boundaries may be placed at a distance from the fracture equal to at least three times the fracture half-length.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McClure (U.S. PAP 2020/0371262) discloses system and method for hydraulic fracture and reservoir simulation. The system and method provided facilitates well life cycle simulation by integrating a three-dimensional model representative of hydraulic fracturing and fluid flow in a wellbore and reservoir.
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 ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857