DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 10/13/2025. Status of Claims
The response amended claims 1-2, 6, 8-14, 17, and 19-20 and cancelled claims 5 and 16. Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are pending and rejected as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2 and 14 are acknowledged and remedy the issues identified in the prior office action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claims 1-7 and 12-18 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained. A revised rejection is set forth addressing the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 are acknowledged but unpersuasive as explained below.
Applicant asserts that “amended claim 1 recites a unitary, technical, and inventive solution to increase gas production at the the plurality of zones by conditioning deep resistivity data, integrating the conditioned deep resitivity data with effective porosity data, and classifying zones to further determine a wellbore operation. Consequently, claim 1 is not directed to non-statutory subject matter.” (Remarks P. 9). This argument is unpersuasive. The steps referenced by Applicant are found to be part of the abstract idea and the guidance makes clear that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.”
With respect to the additional elements in the instant case, claims 1 and 12 simply recite “performing a wellbore operation” which is recited at a high level of generality. Claim 13 merely uses a general purpose computer to make a recommendation of a type of operation to perform (which is an intended use, such operation(s) themselves being outside of the scope of the claim). There is no detail provided in the claims, or the disclosure, regarding how these operations are performed or what means are used to perform such operations. Instead, the instant application merely names a variety of types of operations at a high level (e.g. “fracturing”, “perforation”, e.g. spec. [0020]). Simply claiming that a type of wellbore operation is “performed” is the idea of a solution or outcome without the details necessary to provide a particular solution to a problem. Furthermore, the specification does not purport to provide a technical solution to a technological problem. Instead, the specification states that “The challenge is how to define these zones with the most potential to produce gas so that perforation operations can be targeted to the right zones” [0002] which is a business problem. The claimed conditioning of resistivity data and integrating that data with porosity data through mathematical calculation to classify potential gas-bearing zones is a mathematical/analytical solution, not a technical one. See rejection for further detail.
Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 does not explicitly recite any mathematical formula or function. Therefore, amended claim 1 is not directed to the judicial exception of a mathematical concept.” (Remarks P. 9-10). This argument is unpersuasive. First, the limitations in the claims are also identified as reciting Mental Processes. Furthermore, a claim need not have an equation itself in order to recite or set forth mathematical concepts. Instead “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In the instant case, it is clear that the “integrating” of the data to “produce a flow index curve”, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, recites a mathematical calculation, relationship and/or equation. Specifically, the specification defines such integrating as including a mathematical calculation of “(a) value = (conditioned deep resistivity)*(effective porosity)n where 1 < n ≤ 10” [0008], which is also specified in the dependent claims (e.g. see 3-4). Thus, the BRI of the “integrating” in the independent claims is a Mathematical Concept.
Applicant argues “Furthermore, wellbore operations cannot be practically performed in the human mind and not limited to mathematical concepts. Thus, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.” (Remarks P. 10). This argument is unpersuasive. The claims recite steps that include “conditioning”, “integrating”, “classifying”, and “identifying” which are abstract as outlined herein. The recitation of performing a wellbore operation based on the results of the data analysis steps does not render those data observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions any less abstract. The “performing” step is treated as an additional element under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B and found insufficient to render the claim eligible.
Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 recites an improvement to the technical field by explicitly reciting integration of the conditioned deep resistivity data with effective porosity data for the plurality of zones. Amended claim 1 therefore provides a practical application.” (Remarks P. 10). This argument is unpersuasive for similar reasons as those discussed above.
Applicant argues that the “wellbore operations of amended claim 1 are not merely incidental or token additions to claim 1. Instead, wellbore operations are performed according to the determinations made at each step in claim 1, wherein the specific wellbore operation is selected based on flow type of the respective zone. Therefore, when viewing the ordered elements of amended claim 1 as a whole, claim 1 at least recites significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.” (Remarks P. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above the “performing” of wellbore operations is not described in any detail in the claims or disclosure. Instead the specification simply names well known types of operations in the field (e.g. fracturing or perforation) and the claim simply appends this step of “performing” to an otherwise abstract process of identifying potential gas producing zones. The performing of “wellbore operations” based on the results of the analysis being merely a field of use limitation and/or simply an insignificant application of the abstract idea similar to the final step of cutting hair in In re Brown or the printing of menus in Ameranth. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The “performing of wellbore operations” does not provide an improvement in technology, does not amount to a particular machine or transformation, nor does it appear to provide any meaningful limit on the abstract idea. Instead, it serves as mere instruction to apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, a general link to a field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity and is insufficient to render the claim eligible.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained. See rejection below for further detail.
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, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
conditioning deep resistivity data for a plurality of zones of a subterranean formation, thereby producing conditioned deep resistivity data;
integrating the conditioned deep resistivity data with effective porosity data for the plurality of zones, thereby producing a flow index curve for each of the plurality of zones; and
classifying each of the plurality of zones by flow type based on respective flow index curves, wherein zones having a flow index greater than or equal to 0.5 are classified as a first type, zones with the flow index between 0.2 and 0.5 are classified as a second type, and zones with the flow index less than or equal to 0.2 are classified as a third type;
identifying one or more potential gas-producing zones from the plurality of zones based on the classifications; and
performing a wellbore operation on at least one of the one or more potential gas-producing zones, wherein the wellbore operation is selected based on flow type of the respective at least one potential gas-producing zones.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of claims 12 and 13.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 12 is a method and claim 13 is a “machine-readable storage medium” (noting Spec. [0042]: “Any non-transitory, tangible storage media possessing structure may be utilized including, but not limited to, static and dynamic storage devices, hard disks, optical storage devices, and magnetic storage devices, but excludes any medium that is not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signals per se).”).
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claims 1, 12, and 13 are found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and/or a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “conditioning” data to produce a cross plot (such as normalizing, scaling, or otherwise changing the values, e.g. Specification: [0024]-[0026]), “integrating” the data to produce a flow index curve (i.e. generating a graph through mathematical calculations/relationships between the variables, e.g. noting claims 3-4), “classifying” zones by flow type, “identifying” zones based on the classifications, and selecting a wellbore operation to perform based on the flow type which fall well within the category of mental processes because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations and relationships in the generation of data curves/crossplots (e.g. Spec. [0028]) and thus fall well within the mathematical concepts category of abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 12 and 13. Claim 12 further elaborating upon the “conditioning” and “integrating” steps which further recite mathematical calculations, relationships and data evaluations and judgements. Claim 13 further recites a step of “recommending” a wellbore operation based on the identification of the potential gas-producing zones which is a data evaluation, judgement or opinion capable of being performed mentally.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited, claims 1 and 12 recite the additional elements of “performing a wellbore operation on at least one of the one or more potential gas-producing zones”. However, the “performing a wellbore operation” is recited at a high level of generality, without describing what the “operation” is or how it is “performed”. The claim merely generally recites the idea of an outcome without reciting any particular details of how the result is accomplished or the mechanism for accomplishing the result. It amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea in the particular technological environment and/or it merely serves as a general link to the field of use of wellbore/hydrocarbon operations. See MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). For example, in Flook, although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197. Similarly in the instant case, the “performing the wellbore operation” has no affect on how the classification of zones is performed. Instead, it is merely a token addition or insignificant application of the abstract idea of identifying potential gas-producing zones. See MPEP 2106.05(g) citing In re Brown and Ameranth.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited, claim 13 recites the additional elements of “A machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for identifying one or more potential gas-producing zones, the computer program comprising a routine of set instructions for causing the machine to perform the steps of:” however these element(s) are found to be generic computer components recited a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 12, and 13 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment and/or the additional elements merely serve as a general link to a particular field of use. Furthermore, the “performing a wellbore operation” selected based on the results of the analysis is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity that when reevaluated under Step 2B is well understood, routine, and conventional. This conclusion is supported by the well known fact that “wellbore operations” are performed in the oil and gas producing field and such operations are common practice as evidenced by the prior art of record such as: US 20120152531 A1 describing “Hydrocarbon producing wells are often stimulated in order to enhance production. A fracing operation is a common method of stimulating a well.” [0002]; and US 20110264372 A1 describing “a routine operation for oil companies to assess oil recovery efficiency and to identify zones for sidetrack or perforation” [0002]; and US 20210149070 A1 see [0002].
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fail to necessitate a conclusion that claims 1, 12, and 13 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4, 6-11, 14-15, and 17-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea, including reciting further steps that are also mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, e.g. classifying data, applying data in a model, and making recommendations. The dependent claims do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1 and 13.
With respect to dependent claims 9-10 specifically, the claims further recite “selecting” an operation “to perform” based on the flow type. Making a selection based on information is simply a data evaluation and judgement capable of being performed mentally and thus selecting what type of operation to perform based on the results of the zone classification is further part of the abstract idea.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
Regarding the prior art, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach or reasonably suggest the combination of elements in independent claims 1, 12, and 13. Specifically, although the prior art describes evaluating resistivity and porosity for determining the condition of reservoir zones and classifying the type of zone, the prior art fails to specifically describe “classifying the plurality of zones based as Flow Type 1 with a flow index of greater than or equal to 0.5, Flow Type 2 with the flow index between 0.2 and 0.5, and Flow Type 3 with the flow index less than or equal to 0.2” in combination with the other elements in the claim. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 14-15, and 17-20 overcome the prior art for similar reasons.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Also:
CN 111123362 A disclosing methods for classifying reservoir quality based on fracture characteristics including density, angle, crack opening degree, etc.
CN 111827996 A describing methods of reservoir classification including classifying between three types of sandstone regions/layers according to surface porosity, permeability, and throat radius values, including ranges of values corresponding to each type, e.g. Fig. 3.
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 SHELBY A TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-6334. (via email: Shelby.Turner1@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an Internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 ET ET.
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, Technology Center Director Allana Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights