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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No.18/187,170, is filed on 03/21/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/02/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment is entered into further examination and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding remarks on the objections to the specification, amendment is accepted and the previous objections are withdrawn.
Regarding remarks on the objections to the drawings, amendment is accepted and the previous objections are withdrawn.
Regarding remarks on the objections to the claims, amendment is accepted and the previous objections are withdrawn.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), amendment is accepted and the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 101, arguments based on the amendments are fully considered, but are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicant argues (see pg. 10 par. 6 – pg. 13 par. 6) that the amendment including the highlighted limitation, i.e. updating wellbore operations, using the critical line, by changing settings of equipment used for drilling the well, made claims 1-20 patent eligible because amended claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to optimizing production rates of wells under various operating conditions as indicated in paragraph [0106]. Thus, when considered as a whole, specifically integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application and provide significant technical advances and inventive concepts over prior solutions: (I) Claims 1, 8, and 15 are not abstract because they recite specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result. Claims include automatic adjustment of drilling operations, which along with the other steps in the claim, is used for controlling one or more well operations, thereby achieving an improved technological result. Thus, for similar reasons as described in the Federal Circuit's holding in DDR Holdings, the claimed invention here is directed to patent eligible subject matter. (II) Claims 1, 8, and 15 are not abstract because they recite various improvements to oil-drilling operation technology.as indicated in the newly added limitation, i.e. updating wellbore operations, using the critical line, by changing settings of equipment used for drilling the well.
Examiner respectfully submits that the amended claims when looking at as a whole is still no more than the abstract idea because newly included limitation, i.e. updating wellbore operations, using the critical line, by changing settings of equipment used for drilling the well, is an insignificant extra solution activity, recites wellbore operations in a high level of generality without specific details. The limitation/element “wellbore operation” can be interpreted as “inspecting the equipment used for drilling the well” or “instructing the operator to change the drilling location” or “creating a plan for future wellbore operation” for instance under BRI, which can be again treated as part of abstract idea or as insignificant extra solution activities. The alleged significant technical advances and inventive concepts over prior solutions appear in the abstract idea itself. The improvement of abstract idea cannot be treated as integrating into a practical application. (I) Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are abstract because the alleged unconventional steps are in the abstract idea itself. The alleged automatic adjustment of drilling operations is not explicitly nor positively recited in the claims.
The additional alleged argument that the current claims are similar to those of the court case, i.e. DDR holdings, is not persuasive because DDR holdings show unconventional user interface feature, “look at feel” in the Website and its specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an “outsource provider” that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the Internet, which enables the claims DDR ('399 patent's claims) patent eligible. (See DDR pg. 23 line 7-25). The instant claims are deficient in providing similar unconventional features to the problems arising in the realm of [sample] analysis collected from the Internet, which is rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, which is totally different technical field. Therefore, the instant claims are not similar to those of DDR holdings case.
(II) The clams fail to recite specific oil drilling operations to show improvements to the oil-drilling operation technology. As explained earlier, even with the newly added limitation “updating wellbore operations, using the critical line, by changing settings of equipment used for drilling the well”, the claims fail to overcome abstract idea because the newly added limitation can be interpreted either as another abstract idea or insignificant extra solution activity under BRI because claims recite wellbore operation in a high level of generality without specific details.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A computer-implemented method, (1.A) comprising:
performing a separator test of a well that is flowing at unstable conditions to generate separator data; (1.B)
determining, using the separator data of the separator test, a distribution of the separator data relative to a critical line for a wellbore of the well, the critical line being generated using a Turner equation; (1.C.1) and
determining that at least a portion of the distribution of the separator data is distanced from the critical line for the wellbore; (1.C.2)
determining, using gas, oil, and water rates from a separator of the well, a water gas ratio (WGR) and a gas liquid ratio (GLR); (1.D)
when a gas relative permeability (Krg), an oil relative permeability (Kro), and a water relative permeability (K,) are available, adjusting K, and Kro until they match the separator data at critical conditions in a GLR-WGR log-log plot for the well; (1.E)
otherwise, adjusting a field constant Cfield until it matches the separator data at critical conditions in a GLR-WGR log-log plot; (1.F)
adjusting, based on the WGR, the critical line; (1.G) and
updating wellbore operations, using the critical line, by changing settings of equipment used for drilling the well. (1.H)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by 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. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.C.1)-(1.G) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A computer-implemented method”, “performing a separator test of a well that is flowing at unstable conditions to generate separator data” and “updating wellbore operations, using the critical line, by changing settings of equipment used for drilling the well.“;
In Claim 5: “plotting results of the separator test for a field containing the well”;
In Claim 8: “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations”;
In Claim 16: “A computer-implemented system”, “one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors to perform operations”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A computer-implemented method“ is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the method to a particular operation or field of use although the preamble indicates a use of a computer. Indicating use of a computer is not particular in the art.
The limitation/step “performing a separator test of a well that is flowing at unstable conditions to generate separator data” represents a standard testing and data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
The limitation “updating wellbore operations, using the critical line, by changing settings of equipment used for drilling the well” represent a natural post solution activity in the art and only adds insignificant solution activity because wellbore operations are recited in a high level of generality without specific details, which can be interpreted as many different ways under BRI as explained in the response the remarks/arguments section above.
As per claim 5, the limitation/step “plotting results of the separator test for a field containing the well” represents a standard data report/display step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 9, the additional element in the preamble “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the computer medium to a particular operation or field of use although the preamble indicates using a computer storage medium. Use of a computer storage medium is not particular in the art.
As per claim 16, the additional element in the preamble “A computer-implemented system“ is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the system to a particular operation or field of use although the preamble indicates a use of a computer. Indicating use of a computer is not particular in the art.
The limitations/elements “one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors to perform operations” represent use of general computer resources and they are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements for the claims other than declared as patent eligible, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Nalla, Alali, Binli, Poe and others in the list of prior art cited)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite subject matter which is allowable over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome current objections and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claims 1, 8 and 15, the closest prior art of record, Nallaparaju (Nallaparaju, "Prediction of Liquid Loading," presented at the 9th Biennial International Conference and Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics, Hyderabad, India, February 16-18, 2012, 5 pages), hereinafter ‘Nalla’, Alali (US 20230250717 A1), Binli (Binli, "Overview of Solutions to Prevent Liquid Loading Problems in Gas Wells," Thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University, December 2009, 99 pages) and Poe (US 6101447 A), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious limitations
“determining, using gas, oil, and water rates from a separator of the well, a water gas ratio (WGR) and a gas liquid ratio (GLR);
when a gas relative permeability (Krg), an oil relative permeability (Kro), and a water relative permeability (K,) are available, adjusting K, and Kro until they match the separator data at critical conditions in a GLR-WGR log-log plot for the well;
otherwise, adjusting a field constant Cfield until it matches the separator data at critical conditions in a GLR-WGR log-log plot;
and adjusting, based on the WGR, the critical line” in combination with other limitations.
As per claim 1, Nalla discloses
using Turner model to predict liquid loading by turner curve with further consideration of applying two modal analysis, i.e. IPR and TPR (use turner model to predict liquid loading by intersecting turner curve with IPR and TPR, Predicting the time and condition where liquid loading starts helps … to take early measures to prevent it leading to proper utilization of resources [pg. 3 right col par. 3], Nodal analysis, subsystems, IPR shows the relationship between flowing bottom hole pressure (Pwf) to flow from the well (Qg), outflow from the nodal point to the surface (TPR) [pg. 2 right col par. 1 from the bottom]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
Alali discloses a computer-implemented method for determining a gas-oil rate (GOR), corrected WC is determined for the oil well based on a function of the measured GOR, the measured WC, and the initial solution of the GOR [abs]
using a separator test [0005.0020, Fig. 2], but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
Binli concludes that analyzing different critical rate theories is important to see which model fits better, reciting Turner et al.'s droplet model for determining critical rate fits flow behavior of two wells better ([pg. 70 par. 3])
based upon the analysis of actual field data of gas production wells and comparison of various studies on critical velocity theory to determine critical rates of gas wells having production problems due to liquid loading ([pg. 70 par. 1]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
Poe discloses a complete (from reservoir to wellhead) production analysis system for the evaluation of petroleum reservoir production performance, using industry accepted techniques of analysis.
A computer generated model facilitates the determination of well and formation properties in a computerized methodology, efficiently, reliably and accurately, thereby facilitating subsequent changes in wellbore properties to maximize well production, uses industry accepted production analysis techniques.
These techniques accepted in the industry include material balance, decline curve analysis, and non-linear minimization procedures. Field-recorded production data is evaluated to obtain estimates of the well or formation properties. Statistical techniques are used to minimize or eliminate the effects of outlier (i.e. noise) points in the data [abs].
However, Poe is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
As per claims 2-20, claims would be also allowable because representative claim 1 would be allowable.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857