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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 has been removed. However, the updated 101 rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-14 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant argues “The independent claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception.” (Remarks 06/19/2025)
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea by mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” and concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing mathematical concepts.
The claimed subject matter is merely claims a method for calculating and analyzing (forecasting) information regarding models in the oil/gas field. Although it may be intended to be performed in a digital environment, the claimed subject matter (as currently claimed in the independent claim) speaks to the calculating and analyzing (modeling and projecting) data. Such steps are not tied to the technological realm, but rather utilizing technology to perform the abstract idea (mathematics). Additionally, the claimed subject matter can also be categorized as a Mental Process as it recites concepts performed in the human mind (observation and evaluation). The steps of calculating data, training/updating models, and generating a model can be performed by a human (mental process/pen and paper). The practice of calculating information and constructing models with set parameters and timelines can be performed without computers, and thus are not tied to technology nor improving technology.
The solution mentioned in the amended limitation is not implemented/integrated into technology and thus not an improvement to the technical field. Further, there is no integration into a practical application as the claims can be interpreted as humans per se, as the claims fail to tie the steps to technology; insignificant extra solution activities (which are merely calculating and/or analyzing data).
The steps relied upon by the Applicant as recited does not improve upon another technology, the functioning of the computer itself, or allow the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. The claims do not mention to any use of a specialized computer and/or processor. The Applicant is using generic computing components (processors) to perform in a generic/expected way (obtaining and analyzing data).The abstract idea is not particular to a technological environment, but is merely being applied to a computer realm. The process of calculating and analyzing data specifically for oil/gas asset models, and performing additional analysis can be done without a computer, and thus the claims are not “necessarily rooted", but rather they are utilizing computer technology to perform the abstract idea. The Examiner does not recognize any elements of the Applicant's claims and/or specification that would improve or allow the computer to perform a function(s) not previously performable by the computer, or improve the functioning of the computer itself. It is insufficient to indicate that the claims are novel and non-obvious, and thus contain “something more.” Just because the components may perform a specialized function does not mean that that the computer components are specialized. As such the application of the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing modeling data regarding in an oil/gas system, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
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 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed. Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the “2019 PEG”).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-7 and 10-11), computer program product (claims 9), and system (claims 8 and 12) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of 2019 PEG, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group; and concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing mathematical concepts.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: acquiring respective operational data sensed during a respective oil and gas operation at a respective asset of a plurality of assets, wherein each respective asset of the plurality of assets comprises a respective oil/gas-related asset transmitting the respective operational data of each respective asset of the plurality of assets…: storing the respective operational data …respective asset information corresponding to each respective asset of the plurality of assets automatically accessing the database to retrieve the respective asset information corresponding to each respective asset of the plurality of assets: automatically generating a plurality of individual assets models based upon the respective asset information, wherein each asset model of the plurality of individual asset models corresponds to a specific geographic location having one or more unique characteristics including a tax rate applicable to the specific geographic location, a contract covering at least one term applicable to the specific geographic location, a policy applicable to the specific geographic location, or a law applicable to the specific geographic location; automatically generating a data structure comprising information representing the plurality of individual asset models, wherein the information comprises the one or more unique characteristics; automatically accessing the data structure to retrieve the information representing the plurality of individual asset models and integrating modeling of multiple assets of the plurality of assets via aggregation of the plurality of individual asset models based on an overlapping characteristic of the one or more unique characteristics shared by the plurality of individual asset models to generate a plurality of grouped asset models; autom7aticallyconstructing a tree comprising a hierarchy of a plurality of levels and sub- levels associated with the plurality of grouped asset models and the plurality of individual asset models; [[and]] displaying the tree in a user interface; and performing a modeling operation for the grouped asset models of the plurality of grouped asset models, wherein the modeling operation comprises: predicting a production output of each respective asset of the plurality of assets based on a simulated behavior of the respective asset; executing a workflow to identify one or more output discrepancies between the production output of each respective asset of the plurality of assets: identifying, based on the one or more output discrepancies, one or more characteristic discrepancies between the one or more unique characteristics of each asset model of the plurality of individual asset models: and analyzing the one or more characteristic discrepancies to determine a reason for the one or more output discrepancies. Independent claims 8-9 recite the CRM and system for performing the method of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to via a network to a database…; A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system toa memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to …; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to…(as recited in claims 8-9). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: via a network to a database…; A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system toa memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to …; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to… (as recited in claims 8-9) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0047]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-7 and 12-14) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-7 and 10-12 recite “receiving a selection for a custom group within the user interface; determining a particular subset of the plurality of individual asset models in the custom group;
aggregating the particular subset of the plurality of individual asset models to form a custom group asset model; and presenting the custom group asset model within the tree; wherein an asset represented by the plurality of individual asset models comprises an oil/gas-related asset; wherein the plurality of levels and sub-levels comprise different geographic regions or properties associated with the individual asset models; a profit forecasting model; a depreciation forecasting model; a revenue forecasting model; or an expense forecasting model; wherein the plurality of individual asset models and the plurality of grouped asset models are grouped by at least one of: region; country; continent; legal entity; contract identifier; project; or field; wherein the plurality of individual asset model in the are generated based on expenses, contracts, or legal policies associated with geographic areas linked to the plurality of individual asset models; predicting a production output of each oil/gas-related asset of the one or more assets via the corresponding asset model, wherein the prediction is based on a simulated behavior of the oil/gas-related asset; executing a workflow to identify one or more output discrepancies between the production output of each oil/gas-related asset of the one or more assets; identifying, based on the one or more discrepancies, one or more characteristic discrepancies between the one or more unique characteristics of each asset model of the plurality of asset models; wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to execute a workflow to identify one or more discrepancies between the plurality of individual asset models; providing the modeling operation as a module layer of a framework associated with each respective asset of the plurality of assets and applying the module layer via add-ons or plug-ins to a respective management component associated with each respective asset of the plurality of assets to provide direct management of the respective oil and gas operation at the respective asset; wherein direct management of the respective oil and gas operation at the respective asset comprises directly managing sensing, drilling, injecting, or extracting as the respective oil and gas operation with respect to a geologic environment of the respective asset”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kubo, Ryo. Asset Management Apparatus, Asset Management Method And Asset Management Contract Method, .U.S. PGPub 20050044477 The present invention relates to an asset management apparatus, an asset management method and an asset management contract method used for operating and managing assets and supporting the operation and management. The assets imply production facilities for producing raw materials, products, energy and the like, which are used in various industries and provided for general consumers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625