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 .
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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical relationships and mental processes) without significantly more. Claim 6 recites:
A method for determining a final flow rate model, the method comprising: (falls within the statutory categories of invention)
a. inserting a spinner into a well, the spinner comprising one or more sensors; (the link to the well and its operation amounts to generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of wellbore operations as per MPEP 2106.05(h). The use of the spinner itself to measure is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
b. generating a plurality of spinner data comprising one or more of: (as above, the physical measurement vias sensors is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data generated is numerical data to be used in mathematical calculations detailed below)
a spinner rotational velocity at a given depth; and (a numerical value used for later mathematical calculations)
an apparent flow velocity of a fluid in the well at a given depth; (a numerical value used for later mathematical calculations)
c. generating, via an integral equation, a total flow rate of the fluid in the well based on the spinner data; (using an explicit mathematical equation to perform numerical calculations with the gathered data)
d. calculating an objective function of the integral equation, through the following equation: […] wherein, (θ) is the objective function, (d) is the spinner data, f(p) is the interval flow rate, (σp) is a smoothness regularization of the spinner data, and (w) is a weight between a data adjustment and the smoothness regularization; (using an explicit mathematical equation to perform numerical calculations with the gathered data)
f. defining at least one convergence criterion; (these are numerical constraints on the mathematical calculations, within the scope of mathematical relationships)
g. adapting the integral equation based on an optimization method; (a person can mentally observe the results and adjust the calculation based on their expertise, or this can be done mathematically according to a mathematical optimization algorithm.)
h. calculating a new objective function based on the adapted integral equation; (performing further mathematical calculations)
i. determining whether the at least one convergence criterion has been met, and repeating steps g-i if the at least one convergence criterion is not met; and (repeating the mathematical calculations dependent upon whether numerical constraints are met is further detailing of a mathematical algorithm)
j. obtaining a final flow rate model. (this is obtained by solving mathematical equations and calculations, and remains within the scope of mathematical relationships)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the implied use of whatever computer components are performing the calculations, assumed to be a processor/memory for this analysis, though note no computer operation is explicitly recited), 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of wellbore operations, and 3) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (using a spinner to obtain measurements). The processor/memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/memory performing a generic computer function of executing numerical calculations) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification that data is gathered using sensors on a spinner is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 7-10 recite only further details of the mathematical calculations and algorithms used, and remain within the scope of mathematical relationships. They are ineligible for the above reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims require the use of a specific equation for the objective function used, and that equation requires spinner data and flow rate to be used directly in it. While numerous references disclose the use of objective functions to converge a model to measurement data in the context of a wellbore simulation/monitoring system, none use the specific objective function claimed. The closest prior art is:
US 10280722 B2 represents the closest prior art, and discloses using an objective function that converges the difference between measured and predicted parameters, including flow rate, to a minimum, based on a variety of possible methods, including L2 norm-based objective functions used in inverse simulations with a minimization algorithm such as a Levenberg-Marquardt (L-M) algorithm. It does this in the context of governing equations that are written as integrals. The specific objective function used, however, is never set forth in any manner that would teach or suggest the exact equation as claimed.
US 8620636 B2 characterizes a wellbore by using a spinner measurement and using flow rate to calculate various parameters that are then used in its objective function. Its objective function is not, however, equivalent to the specific one claimed.
US 20220180019 A1 discloses a cost function that explicitly includes flow rate, but is silent regarding the actual form of the cost function (see e.g. ¶100). It also uses this in the context of managing whether parameters converge.
US 20220381139 A1 describes in detail using measurements to characterize flow rate in a wellbore, but does not use an objective function like that claimed.
US 12130405 B2 uses cost functions (i.e. objective functions) in the context of wellbore modeling where a spinner is used to gather data, but does not use the same kind of function as that claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights