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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 03/24/2026 and 03/11/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 18 and 20 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/24/2026 has been entered.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1-9 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a “method” claim. Likewise, claims 10-17, belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a “non-transitory”, computer-readable medium claim and claims 18-20, belongs to a statutory category namely a “system” claim.
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.
The claim(s) 1, 10 and18 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “generating a subsurface model of the subsurface formation, the subsurface model including one or more age-attributed geometries associated with a first age scheme; converting for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries; integrating the first contextual information dataset into the subsurface model, to generate a context volume wherein the context volume includes the target age-attributed geometries and the respective one or more attributes at respective locations of the target age-attributes at respective locations of the target age-attributed geometries to contextualize the geology data”.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 is a non-transitory, computer readable medium, and claim 18 is a system, with substantially similar claim language as the method of claim 1.
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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because “non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor” (claim 10), “[a] system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor…” (claim 18) amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; “obtaining geology data of a subsurface formation” and “obtaining a first contextual information dataset of a target age scheme” (claim 1, 10, 18), is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited, claims 1, 10, and 18 recites the additional elements of “modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response to one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes”. However, the “modifying a drilling or completion operation” is recited at a high level of generality, without describing what the “operation” is or how it is “modified”. 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.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 10 and 18 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
Dependent claims 2-9 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion to “generating, via a projection method, a geometry field in the subsurface model for a first region between a first target age-attributed geometry and a second target age-attributed geometry; generating one or more incremental target age-attributed geometries based on the first region; and integrating the first contextual information dataset into the subsurface model via the one or more incremental target age-attributed geometries (claim 2), “the projection method includes a proportional stratigraphic laying method, a parallel projection method, and a similar projection method” (claim 3), “projecting the one or more target age-attributed geometries to a map domain; joining the one or more target age-attributed geometries with one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset based on a geological age and a spatial intersection; obtaining one or more attributes corresponding to the target age-attributed geometry based on the one or more layers; and integrating the one or more attributes into the subsurface model” (claim 4) and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Step 2A, prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-9 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation of “obtaining geology data of a subsurface formation” and “obtaining a first contextual information dataset of a target age scheme” (claim 1) amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data (claims 5-9), and used with the math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 2-9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Step 2A prong 1
Dependent claims 11-17 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 11-17 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion to “generating, via a projection method, a geometry field in the subsurface model for a first region between a first target age-attributed geometry and a second target age-attributed geometry; generating one or more incremental target age-attributed geometries based on the first region; and integrating the first contextual information dataset into the subsurface model via the one or more incremental target age-attributed geometries (claim 11), “wherein the projection method includes a proportional stratigraphic laying method, a parallel projection method, and a similar projection method” (claim 12), “projecting the one or more target age-attributed geometries to a map domain; joining the one or more target age-attributed geometries with one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset based on a geological age and a spatial intersection; obtaining one or more attributes corresponding to the target age-attributed geometry based on the one or more layers; and integrating the one or more attributes into the subsurface model” (claim 13) and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 14-17).
Step 2A prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 11-17 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor…” recited in claims 10-17, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “obtaining geology data of a subsurface formation” and “obtaining a first contextual information dataset of a target age scheme” (claim 10) amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data (claims 14-17), and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 11-17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “units” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Step 2A prong 1
Dependent claims 19-20 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 19-20 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion to “generate, via a projection method, a geometry field in the subsurface model for a first region between a first target age-attributed geometry and a second target age-attributed geometry; generate one or more incremental target age-attributed geometries based on the first region; and integrate the first contextual information dataset into the subsurface model via the one or more incremental target age-attributed geometries” (claim 19), “project the one or more target age-attributed geometries to a map domain; joining the one or more target age-attributed geometries with one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset based on a geological age and a spatial intersection; obtaining one or more attributes corresponding to the target age-attributed geometry based on the one or more layers; and integrating the one or more attributes into the subsurface model” (claim 20).
Step 2A prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 19-20 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “the processor…” recited in claims 18-20, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “obtaining geology data of a subsurface formation” and “obtaining a first contextual information dataset of a target age scheme” (claim 18) amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data and used with the math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 18-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “processor” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 13-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baines et al. US2022/0390634. (hereinafter Baines) in view of Imhof et al. US20110002194A1 (hereinafter Imhof) in further view of Souche et al. US2016/0124116A1 (hereinafter Souche).
Regarding claim 1, Baines discloses a method (Fig. 1) comprising:
obtaining geology data of a subsurface formation (see Fig. 1, “seismic data store”, step 105, “Load Seismic Data”; para. 0016, 0023, wherein the seismic data can be received form a seismic data store; Fig. 3A, where an example of seismic data that is received is shown);
generating a subsurface model of the subsurface formation, the subsurface model including one or more age-attributed geometries associated with a first age scheme (see Fig. 1, step 150 “Initial Age Model, step 155 “Select Initial Age Model”; see abstract, “generating a geological age model for a subterranean area”; para. 0004, 0017, 0024, 0026, wherein resulting seismic data can include horizons with pre-interpreted suite of patches and a correlation of pre-defined horizons with the interpreted seismic data can be determined; para. 0033-0034, wherein an initial age model is defined based on historical data; Fig. 3C where an initial depositional rate model is illustrated);
obtaining a first contextual information dataset associated with a target age scheme that is different than the first age scheme (see Fig. 1, step 165, “Known Age Constraints”, step 160 “Solve for Age Model”, para. 0018, para. 0035, wherein Equation 5 is used to solve for age of the patches and Equation 6 is updated until solutions converge; see Fig. 3D; see para. 0039, 0041, wherein known constraints to define an initial age model for the patches is disclosed, wherein the age schemes are different since the age are performed for the different sedimentary layers in a subsurface and wherein geological age model is constructed see para. 0017-0018; Fig. 1), wherein the first contextual information dataset includes one or more attributes of the subsurface formation (para. 0017-0018,0024 wherein seismic data, which can be reflection data is disclosed and wherein the data also can include horizons, [para. 0024], depositional rate, depositional slowness, [0028,0030, 0033] );
converting each of the one or more age-attributed geometries to a target age attributed geometry based on the target scheme (see Fig. 1, step 160 “Solve for ‘AGE’ Model”, para. 0018-0019, para. 0035, 0039-0042,0061-0062 wherein the initial model could be defined by interpolating between known constraints to define an apriori age volume and then assign an age for each patch by sampling this age volume, and wherein an interpolation of patch-ages is disclosed to generate an age model; see para. 0061, wherein it is determined if the geological age model is acceptable (target age scheme) by performing a quality assurance or quality control review of the geological age model);
integrating the first contextual information dataset into the subsurface model, via the one or more target age-attributed geometries, to generate a context volume (Fig. 1, step 180 “Post-Processing”, step 190 “Output Data”; see abstract, “generating a geological age model of the subsurface by solving for the relative geological age of each of the patches using the patch-links”; para. 0018-0021, 0041, 0044, para. 0056, wherein it may be necessary to add patch links that define how horizons are linked across the fault, para. 0060, wherein known age constraints can be added to steps 155 and 160; para. 0062-0063, wherein interpolation of patch ages and a volume is disclosed; see abstract, para. 0016, 0018-0019 “determine the relationships and derive an interpretation for a complete volume”), wherein the context volume includes the target age-attributed geometries (context/complete volume includes, horizons, patches, and patch links) and the respective one or more attributes at respective locations of the target age-attributed geometries to contextualize the geology data (Fig. 3C, para. 0003-0004, 0017, 0024, 0026, horizons with pre-interpreted suit of patches and a correlation of pre-defined horizons (target age-attributed geometries) and an initial depositional rate (attributes) [0028-0031, 0033] are included in the context/complete volume at a location in the subsurface [0031, 0061]; see Fig. 1, step 160 “Solve for ‘AGE’ Model”, para. 0018-0019, para. 0035, 0039-0042,0061-0062 wherein the initial model could be defined by interpolating between known constraints to define an apriori age volume and then assign an age for each patch by sampling this age volume, and wherein an interpolation of patch-ages is disclosed to generate an age model; see para. 0061, wherein it is determined if the geological age model is acceptable (target age scheme) by performing a quality assurance or quality control review of the geological age model (contextualize geology data)); and
performing a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response the one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes (see abstract, “determine the relationships and derive an interpretation for a complete volume”, see para. 0061-0063, 0071 wherein the output i.e. Relative Geological Time (RGT) volume, can be used in a well operation i.e. drilling operation, and wherein the output is used to identify the drilling location and drilling is performed at the location).
However Baines may not expressly or explicitly disclose “converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries” and do not specifically disclose modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation (emphasis added).
Imhof discloses a method for geophysical and geological interpretation of seismic volumes in the domains of depth, time, and age. Imhof discloses transforming geologic data relating to a subsurface region between a geophysical domain and a geologic age domain (see abstract). Imhof further discloses converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries (see Figs. 1-4, 25; abstract; para. 0030-0037, wherein patches to segment seismic data volume into three-dimensional bodies and attributes and geometric characteristics of the subsurface is disclosed; and wherein geologic data relating to a subsurface region between a geophysical depth domain and geologic age domain is disclosed).
Imhof disclose transforming/converting (see abstract) (para. 0031-0032); age assignment, depth mapping volume/geometry, and mapping samples from age domain to the depth domain (abstract, para. 0031-0032; 0196); and wherein transformation/conversion (0132) of geophysical, geologic, or engineered data or interpretations between depth domain and age domain, and between the age domain and the depth domain are being made and wherein an output of geophysical, geologic, or engineering data or interpretations transformed by at least one the age mapping volume or depth mapping volume are outputted (see Fig. 25; abstract, para. 0031-0032, 0035; 0182, 0188, para. 0200, 0215), wherein said transformation can be fairly interpreted as a conversion from a first age scheme to a target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Imhof to enable the system of Baines for converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries for the benefit of providing an enhanced system that would allow for organizing and presenting seismic data in a geologically intuitive manner which facilitates seismic interpretation and characterization of the subsurface and thus the delineation of underground features relevant to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons efficiently and accurately, (see para. 0082, 0173).
However Baines do not expressly or explicitly disclose modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation.
Souche disclose a volume based modeling and generation of structural information for a subsurface formation from the volume based modeling to determine a value of stratigraphic implicit function corresponding to a determined location within the volume of interest (see abstract).
Souche further disclose volume based modeling structural framework, including input faults and horizon interpretations, a tetrahedral mesh, and relative stratigraphic age representations (para. 0014, 0022-0023, 0028), and performing drilling operation according to a plan and wherein drilling operation may need to deviation from drilling plan as information (horizons, volume, geometrical attributes, para. 0028, 0037, 0049) is gathered (para. 0050, 0055; “modifying a drilling or completion of operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Souche to modify the system of Baines as modified by Imhof, for modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response the one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes for the benefit of optimizing portions of the field operation such as controlling drilling in order to select optimum operating conditions or to avoid problems (see para. 0057).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further discloses, projecting the one or more target age-attributed geometries to a map domain (see Figs. 3A-3D, para. 0002, 0004, 0017, 0063-0064, 0067, wherein contour plot of the obtained geological age model and wherein clinoforms and parallel seismic events are shown is shown);
joining the one or more target age-attributed geometries with one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset based on a geological age and a spatial intersection (para. 0031, wherein intersection of patches in vertical axis and a definition of patch-links between all vertically adjacent patches at a location is disclosed; para. 0044, wherein patch-links are added automatically including extrapolations between patches and intersections; 0078);
obtaining one or more attributes corresponding to the target age-attributed geometry based on the one or more layers (para. 0003, 0019-0021, 0026, , wherein horizons are used to characterize the reservoir; para. 0008, 0015-0017, and wherein horizon interpretation in seismic data is carried out); and
integrating the one or more attributes into the subsurface model (para. 0017-0018, 0021, Fig. 1, Fig. 3D, wherein a geological age model is obtained from patches and the horizon interpretation).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further disclose that the one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset is in the map domain (see Figs. 3A-3D; para. 0002, 0005, 0011, 0016-0017, 0025-0026, 0039, 0062, 0065, wherein derived horizons are interpreted and relationships between patches are received as inputs to determine the relationships an derive an interpretation for a complete volume and wherein sedimentary layers in a subsurface are interpreted).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further disclose that the first contextual information dataset may span between multiple target age-attributed geometries (see abstract, para. 0017-0019, 0028, 0035 0050, 0078, wherein a geological age model is generated by using multiple patches in order to abstracting the geometry of the patches to a subset of spatial and geological relationships between those patches).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further disclose wherein the one or more age-attributed geometries (see para. 0019) represent geological features in the subsurface formation and include a point (see para. 0048, wherein a midpoint is disclosed), a line (para. 0023, 0054-0056, 0068, wherein a line representing a single age and similar lanes representing an interval of an age range is disclosed), and a surface (see abstract, para. 0002-0003, 0017, wherein a subsurface and horizons that characterized structure of the subsurface but also represent surfaces of uniform geological time is disclosed), and further discloses wherein the geological features include a top (see par. 0031, wherein the links from each patch para. 0051, wherein a greater value is disclosed and para. 0052, wherein maximum values are disclosed), a fault (see para. 0020, 0042, 0059, wherein faults, folded and/or faulted horizons are disclosed) and stratigraphic interface (see para. 0003, wherein that stratigraphic studies are disclosed).
Regarding claim 10, Baines discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to perform operations (see para. 0005, Fig.1) comprising:
obtaining geology data of a subsurface formation (see Fig. 1, “seismic data store”, step 105, “Load Seismic Data”; para. 0016, 0023, wherein the seismic data can be received form a seismic data store; Fig. 3A, where an example of seismic data that is received is shown);
generating a subsurface model of the subsurface formation, the subsurface model including one or more age-attributed geometries associated with a first age scheme (see Fig. 1, step 150 “Initial Age Model, step 155 “Select Initial Age Model”; see abstract, “generating a geological age model for a subterranean area”; para. 0004, 0017, 0024, 0026, wherein resulting seismic data can include horizons with pre-interpreted suite of patches and a correlation of pre-defined horizons with the interpreted seismic data can be determined; para. 0033-0034, wherein an initial age model is defined based on historical data; Fig. 3C where an initial depositional rate model is illustrated);
obtaining a first contextual information dataset associated with a target age scheme that is different than the first age scheme (see Fig. 1, step 165, “Known Age Constraints”, step 160 “Solve for Age Model”, para. 0018, para. 0035, wherein Equation 5 is used to solve for age of the patches and Equation 6 is updated until solutions converge; see Fig. 3D; see para. 0039, 0041, wherein known constraints to define an initial age model for the patches is disclosed, wherein the age schemes are different since the age are performed for the different sedimentary layers in a subsurface and wherein geological age model is constructed see para. 0017-0018; Fig. 1), wherein the first contextual information dataset includes one or more attributes of the subsurface formation (para. 0017-0018,0024 wherein seismic data, which can be reflection data is disclosed and wherein the data also can include horizons, [para. 0024], depositional rate, depositional slowness, [0028,0030, 0033]);
converting each of the one or more age-attributed geometries to a target age attributed geometry based on the target scheme (see Fig. 1, step 160 “Solve for ‘AGE’ Model”, para. 0018-0019, para. 0035, 0039-0042,0061-0062 wherein the initial model could be defined by interpolating between known constraints to define an apriori age volume and then assign an age for each patch by sampling this age volume, and wherein an interpolation of patch-ages is disclosed to generate an age model; see para. 0061, wherein it is determined if the geological age model is acceptable (target age scheme) by performing a quality assurance or quality control review of the geological age model);
integrating the first contextual information dataset into the subsurface model, to generate a context volume (Fig. 1, step 180 “Post-Processing”, step 190 “Output Data”; see abstract, “generating a geological age model of the subsurface by solving for the relative geological age of each of the patches using the patch-links”; para. 0018-0021, 0041, 0044, para. 0056, wherein it may be necessary to add patch links that define how horizons are linked across the fault, para. 0060, wherein known age constraints can be added to steps 155 and 160; para. 0062-0063, wherein interpolation of patch ages and a volume is disclosed; see abstract, para. 0016, 0018-0019 “determine the relationships and derive an interpretation for a complete volume”), wherein the context volume includes the target age-attributed geometries (context/complete volume includes, horizons, patches, and patch links) and the respective one or more attributes at respective locations of the target age-attributed geometries to contextualize the geology data (Fig. 3C, para. 0003-0004, 0017, 0024, 0026, horizons with pre-interpreted suit of patches and a correlation of pre-defined horizons (target age-attributed geometries) and an initial depositional rate (attributes) [0028-0031, 0033] are included in the context/complete volume at a location in the subsurface [0031, 0061]; see Fig. 1, step 160 “Solve for ‘AGE’ Model”, para. 0018-0019, para. 0035, 0039-0042,0061-0062 wherein the initial model could be defined by interpolating between known constraints to define an apriori age volume and then assign an age for each patch by sampling this age volume, and wherein an interpolation of patch-ages is disclosed to generate an age model; see para. 0061, wherein it is determined if the geological age model is acceptable (target age scheme) by performing a quality assurance or quality control review of the geological age model (contextualize geology data)); and
performing a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response the one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes (see abstract, “determine the relationships and derive an interpretation for a complete volume”, see para. 0061-0063, 0071 wherein the output i.e. Relative Geological Time (RGT) volume, can be used in a well operation i.e. drilling operation, and wherein the output is used to identify the drilling location and drilling is performed at the location).
However Baines may not expressly or explicitly disclose “converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries” and do not specifically disclose modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation (emphasis added).
Imhof discloses a method for geophysical and geological interpretation of seismic volumes in the domains of depth, time, and age. Imhof discloses transforming geologic data relating to a subsurface region between a geophysical domain and a geologic age domain (see abstract). Imhof further discloses converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries (see Figs. 1-4, 25; abstract; para. 0030-0037, wherein patches to segment seismic data volume into three-dimensional bodies and attributes and geometric characteristics of the subsurface is disclosed; and wherein geologic data relating to a subsurface region between a geophysical depth domain and geologic age domain is disclosed).
Imhof disclose transforming/converting (see abstract) (para. 0031-0032); age assignment, depth mapping volume/geometry, and mapping samples from age domain to the depth domain (abstract, para. 0031-0032; 0196); and wherein transformation/conversion (0132) of geophysical, geologic, or engineered data or interpretations between depth domain and age domain, and between the age domain and the depth domain are being made and wherein an output of geophysical, geologic, or engineering data or interpretations transformed by at least one the age mapping volume or depth mapping volume are outputted (see Fig. 25; abstract, para. 0031-0032, 0035; 0182, 0188, para. 0200, 0215), wherein said transformation can be fairly interpreted as a conversion from a first age scheme to a target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Imhof to enable the system of Baines for converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries for the benefit of providing an enhanced system that would allow for organizing and presenting seismic data in a geologically intuitive manner which facilitates seismic interpretation and characterization of the subsurface and thus the delineation of underground features relevant to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons efficiently and accurately, (see para. 0082, 0173).
However Baines and Imhof do not expressly or explicitly disclose modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation.
Souche disclose a volume based modeling and generation of structural information for a subsurface formation from the volume based modeling to determine a value of stratigraphic implicit function corresponding to a determined location within the volume of interest (see abstract).
Souche further disclose volume based modeling structural framework, including input faults and horizon interpretations, a tetrahedral mesh, and relative stratigraphic age representations (para. 0014, 0022-0023, 0028), and performing drilling operation according to a plan and wherein drilling operation may need to deviation from drilling plan as information (horizons, volume, geometrical attributes, para. 0028, 0037, 0049) is gathered (para. 0050, 0055; “modifying a drilling or completion of operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Souche to modify the system of Baines as modified by Imhof, for modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response the one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes for the benefit of optimizing portions of the field operation such as controlling drilling in order to select optimum operating conditions or to avoid problems (see para. 0057).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further teach:
projecting the one or more target age-attributed geometries to a map domain (see Figs. 3A-3D, para. 0002, 0004, 0017, 0063-0064, 0067, wherein contour plot of the obtained geological age model and wherein clinoforms and parallel seismic events are shown is shown);
joining the one or more target age-attributed geometries with one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset based on a geological age and a spatial intersection (para. 0031, wherein intersection of patches in vertical axis and a definition of patch-links between all vertically adjacent patches at a location is disclosed; para. 0044, wherein patch-links are added automatically including extrapolations between patches and intersections; 0078);
obtaining one or more attributes corresponding to the target age-attributed geometry based on the one or more layers (para. 0003, 0019-0021, 0026, , wherein horizons are used to characterize the reservoir; para. 0008, 0015-0017, and wherein horizon interpretation in seismic data is carried out); and
integrating the one or more attributes into the subsurface model (para. 0017-0018, 0021, Fig. 1, Fig. 3D, wherein a geological age model is obtained from patches and the horizon interpretation).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further teach: the one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset is in the map domain (see Figs. 3A-3D; para. 0002, 0005, 0011, 0016-0017, 0025-0026, 0039, 0062, 0065, wherein derived horizons are interpreted and relationships between patches are received as inputs to determine the relationships an derive an interpretation for a complete volume and wherein sedimentary layers in a subsurface are interpreted).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further teach: wherein the geology data includes seismic data, well data, and surface geology data (see abstract, wherein seismic data is disclosed; para. 0039, 0063, 0071, wherein well data is disclosed; see abstract, para. 0003, 0077, wherein subsurface data is disclosed i.e. horizons).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further disclose wherein the one or more age-attributed geometries (see para. 0019) represent geological features in the subsurface formation and include a point (see para. 0048, wherein a midpoint is disclosed), a line (para. 0023, 0054-0056, 0068, wherein a line representing a single age and similar lanes representing an interval of an age range is disclosed), and a surface (see abstract, para. 0002-0003, 0017, wherein a subsurface and horizons that characterized structure of the subsurface but also represent surfaces of uniform geological time is disclosed), and further discloses wherein the geological features include a top (see par. 0031, wherein the links from each patch para. 0051, wherein a greater value is disclosed and para. 0052, wherein maximum values are disclosed), a fault (see para. 0020, 0042, 0059, wherein faults, folded and/or faulted horizons are disclosed) and stratigraphic interface (see para. 0003, wherein that stratigraphic studies are disclosed).
Regarding claim 18, Baines discloses a system (para. 0005, 0022, 0073-0074, Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (para. 0005, 0022, 0073-0074); and
a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor (para. 0005, 0022, 0073-0074) to cause the processor to,
obtain geology data of a subsurface formation (see Fig. 1, “seismic data store”, step 105, “Load Seismic Data”; para. 0016, 0023, wherein the seismic data can be received form a seismic data store; Fig. 3A, where an example of seismic data that is received is shown);
generate a subsurface model of the subsurface formation, the subsurface model including one or more age-attributed geometries associated with a first age scheme (see Fig. 1, step 150 “Initial Age Model, step 155 “Select Initial Age Model”; see abstract, “generating a geological age model for a subterranean area”; para. 0004, 0017, 0024, 0026, wherein resulting seismic data can include horizons with pre-interpreted suite of patches and a correlation of pre-defined horizons with the interpreted seismic data can be determined; para. 0033-0034, wherein an initial age model is defined based on historical data; Fig. 3C where an initial depositional rate model is illustrated);
obtain a first contextual information dataset associated with a target age scheme that is different than the first age scheme (see Fig. 1, step 165, “Known Age Constraints”, step 160 “Solve for Age Model”, para. 0018, para. 0035, wherein Equation 5 is used to solve for age of the patches and Equation 6 is updated until solutions converge; see Fig. 3D; see para. 0039, 0041, wherein known constraints to define an initial age model for the patches is disclosed, wherein the age schemes are different since the age are performed for the different sedimentary layers in a subsurface and wherein geological age model is constructed see para. 0017-0018; Fig. 1), wherein the first contextual information dataset includes one or more attributes of the subsurface formation (para. 0017-0018,0024 wherein seismic data, which can be reflection data is disclosed and wherein the data also can include horizons, [para. 0024], depositional rate, depositional slowness, [0028,0030, 0033] );
convert each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, to a target age-attributed geometry based on the target age scheme (see Fig. 1, step 160 “Solve for ‘AGE’ Model”, para. 0018-0019, para. 0035, 0039-0042,0061-0062 wherein the initial model could be defined by interpolating between known constraints to define an apriori age volume and then assign an age for each patch by sampling this age volume, and wherein an interpolation of patch-ages is disclosed to generate an age model; see para. 0061, wherein it is determined if the geological age model is acceptable (target age scheme) by performing a quality assurance or quality control review of the geological age model);
integrate the first contextual information dataset into the subsurface model, via the one or more target age-attributed geometries, to generate a context volume (Fig. 1, step 180 “Post-Processing”, step 190 “Output Data”; see abstract, “generating a geological age model of the subsurface by solving for the relative geological age of each of the patches using the patch-links”; para. 0018-0021, 0041, 0044, para. 0056, wherein it may be necessary to add patch links that define how horizons are linked across the fault, para. 0060, wherein known age constraints can be added to steps 155 and 160; para. 0062-0063, wherein interpolation of patch ages and a volume is disclosed; see abstract, para. 0016, 0018-0019 “determine the relationships and derive an interpretation for a complete volume”), wherein the context volume includes the target age-attributed geometries (context/complete volume includes, horizons, patches, and patch links) and the respective one or more attributes at respective locations of the target age-attributed geometries to contextualize the geology data (Fig. 3C, para. 0003-0004, 0017, 0024, 0026, horizons with pre-interpreted suit of patches and a correlation of pre-defined horizons (target age-attributed geometries) and an initial depositional rate (attributes) [0028-0031, 0033] are included in the context/complete volume at a location in the subsurface [0031, 0061]; see Fig. 1, step 160 “Solve for ‘AGE’ Model”, para. 0018-0019, para. 0035, 0039-0042,0061-0062 wherein the initial model could be defined by interpolating between known constraints to define an apriori age volume and then assign an age for each patch by sampling this age volume, and wherein an interpolation of patch-ages is disclosed to generate an age model; see para. 0061, wherein it is determined if the geological age model is acceptable (target age scheme) by performing a quality assurance or quality control review of the geological age model (contextualize geology data)); and
performing a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response the one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes (see abstract, “determine the relationships and derive an interpretation for a complete volume”, see para. 0061-0063, 0071 wherein the output i.e. Relative Geological Time (RGT) volume, can be used in a well operation i.e. drilling operation, and wherein the output is used to identify the drilling location and drilling is performed at the location).
However Baines may not expressly or explicitly disclose “converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries” and do not specify modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation (emphasis added).
Imhof discloses a method for geophysical and geological interpretation of seismic volumes in the domains of depth, time, and age. Imhof discloses transforming geologic data relating to a subsurface region between a geophysical domain and a geologic age domain (see abstract). Imhof further discloses converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries (see Figs. 1-4, 25; abstract; para. 0030-0037, wherein patches to segment seismic data volume into three-dimensional bodies and attributes and geometric characteristics of the subsurface is disclosed; and wherein geologic data relating to a subsurface region between a geophysical depth domain and geologic age domain is disclosed).
Imhof disclose transforming/converting (see abstract) (para. 0031-0032); age assignment, depth mapping volume/geometry, and mapping samples from age domain to the depth domain (abstract, para. 0031-0032; 0196); and wherein transformation/conversion (0132) of geophysical, geologic, or engineered data or interpretations between depth domain and age domain, and between the age domain and the depth domain are being made and wherein an output of geophysical, geologic, or engineering data or interpretations transformed by at least one the age mapping volume or depth mapping volume are outputted (see Fig. 25; abstract, para. 0031-0032, 0035; 0182, 0188, para. 0200, 0215), wherein said transformation can be fairly interpreted as a conversion from a first age scheme to a target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Imhof to enable the system of Baines for converting, for each of the one or more age-attributed geometries, the first age scheme to the target age scheme to generate one or more target age-attributed geometries for the benefit of providing an enhanced system that would allow for organizing and presenting seismic data in a geologically intuitive manner which facilitates seismic interpretation and characterization of the subsurface and thus the delineation of underground features relevant to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons efficiently and accurately, (see para. 0082, 0173).
However Baines do not expressly or explicitly disclose modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation.
Souche disclose a volume based modeling and generation of structural information for a subsurface formation from the volume based modeling to determine a value of stratigraphic implicit function corresponding to a determined location within the volume of interest (see abstract).
Souche further disclose volume based modeling structural framework, including input faults and horizon interpretations, a tetrahedral mesh, and relative stratigraphic age representations (para. 0014, 0022-0023, 0028), and performing drilling operation according to a plan and wherein drilling operation may need to deviation from drilling plan as information (horizons, volume, geometrical attributes, para. 0028, 0037, 0049) is gathered (para. 0050, 0055; “modifying a drilling or completion of operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Souche to modify the system of Baines as modified by Imhof, for modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response the one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes for the benefit of optimizing portions of the field operation such as controlling drilling in order to select optimum operating conditions or to avoid problems (see para. 0057).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further teach:
project the one or more target age-attributed geometries to a map domain (see Figs. 3A-3D, para. 0002, 0004, 0017, 0063-0064, 0067, wherein contour plot of the obtained geological age model and wherein clinoforms and parallel seismic events are shown is shown);
joining the one or more target age-attributed geometries with one or more layers of the first contextual information dataset based on a geological age and a spatial intersection (para. 0031, wherein intersection of patches in vertical axis and a definition of patch-links between all vertically adjacent patches at a location is disclosed; para. 0044, wherein patch-links are added automatically including extrapolations between patches and intersections; 0078);
obtaining one or more attributes corresponding to the target age-attributed geometry based on the one or more layers (para. 0003, 0019-0021, 0026, , wherein horizons are used to characterize the reservoir; para. 0008, 0015-0017, and wherein horizon interpretation in seismic data is carried out); and
integrating the one or more attributes into the subsurface model (para. 0017-0018, 0021, Fig. 1, Fig. 3D, wherein a geological age model is obtained from patches and the horizon interpretation).
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baines et al. US2022/0390634. (hereinafter Baines) in view of Imhof et al. US20110002194A1 (hereinafter Imhof) in view of Souche et al. US2016/0124116A1 (hereinafter Souche), in further view of Klinger US2019/0243017A1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further disclose attributes such as horizons, sedimentary layers in a subsurface (see para. 0017).
However, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the one or more attributes include lithology, facies, and climate context.
Klinger discloses a geologic and structural model generation (abstract, Figs. 3-4, 12) in which various features such as stratigraphic layers data associated with those features may be used to create a structural model of a basin (see para. 0001, 0024). Klinger further discloses that stratigraphy and lithostratigraphy may be applied based on similarity of lithology of rocks (see para. 0025) and that some data may be involved in building a model such as depth or thickness maps, fault geometries and may include depth and thickness maps stemming from facies variations and that a model simulation layer may provide domain objects and act as a data source (see para. 0028, 0038, 0041, 0047, 0060). Klinger further discloses a volume based modeling method which include receiving input data, generating a volume mesh which may be an unstructured tetrahedral mesh, calculating implicit function value which may represent stratigraphy and which may be rendered using a periodic map from which horizon surfaces may be extracted and a watertight model of geological layers may be obtained and further discloses the use of a stratigraphic age of geologic formation function of geologic formations (see para. 0079, 0080, 0083, 0110, 0119, 0177) and further discloses climate context (para. 0049, 0062, wherein paleo-tectonic and sedimentary evolution is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing data of the invention to configure the system of Baines as modified by Imhof and Souche to consider one or more attributes that include lithology, facies, and climate context such as disclosed by Klinger, for the benefit of mora accurately and precisely characterizing the structures in the subsurface and aiding in the understanding of various processes related to the exploration and production of natural resources i.e. estimating reserves in place, drilling wells, forecasting production, etc. (para. 0019-0020).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche disclose the materials as discussed above. Baines further discloses that the contextual information dataset includes information including depositional environment (see para. 0003, 0012, 0028-0030, 0033-0034, deposition of sediments) and organic matter content (target hydrocarbon resources, see para. 0063).
However the combination of Baines, Imhof and Souche, do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the first contextual information dataset includes information including lithological rock facies and paleo-climate output.
Klinger discloses a geologic and structural model generation (abstract, Figs. 3-4, 12) in which various features such as stratigraphic layers data associated with those features may be used to create a structural model of a basin (see para. 0001, 0024). Klinger further discloses that stratigraphy and lithostratigraphy may be applied based on similarity of lithology of rocks (see para. 0025) and that some data may be involved in building a model such as depth or thickness maps, fault geometries and may include depth and thickness maps stemming from facies variations and that a model simulation layer may provide domain objects and act as a data source (see para. 0028, 0038, 0041, 0047, 0060). Klinger further discloses deposition of sediments (para. 0051-0053) Klinger further discloses a volume based modeling method which include receiving input data, generating a volume mesh which may be an unstructured tetrahedral mesh, calculating implicit function value which may represent stratigraphy and which may be rendered using a periodic map from which horizon surfaces may be extracted and a watertight model of geological layers may be obtained and further discloses the use of a stratigraphic age of geologic formation function of geologic formations (see para. 0079, 0080, 0083, 0110, 0119, 0177) and further discloses paleo-climate output (para. 0049, 0062, wherein paleo-tectonic and sedimentary evolution is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the system of Baines as modified by Imhof and Souche such that the first contextual information dataset includes information including lithological rock facies, depositional environment, paleo-climate output, and organic matter content, for the benefit of mora accurately and precisely characterizing the structures in the subsurface and aiding in the understanding of various processes related to the exploration and production of natural resources i.e. estimating reserves in place, drilling wells, forecasting production, etc. (para. 0019-0020).
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
Regarding claims 2-3, 11-12 and 19, the closest prior art of made of record either in singularly or in combination fails to teach, disclose or suggest the features set forth by dependent claims 2-3, 11-12 and 19, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to rejections made to claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101, applicant argues that the rejected claims (as amended) recite a practical application of technology that solves problems relating to understanding formations underneath the Earth’s surface (see third paragraph of page 8 of the remarks). Applicant submits that the amended claims 1, 10 and 18, when considered as a whole do not merely recite a mental process, but instead recite a system to generate a subsurface model comprising geometries and corresponding attributes within a subsurface formation, and modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in said subsurface formation based on the subsurface model that constitutes a practical application of the claimed concepts and therefore recite patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 (see penultimate paragraph on page 8 though sixth line on page 9 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that the additional elements discussed by applicant (i.e. model comprising geometries and corresponding attributes within a subsurface formation), which is mere data characterization generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
Examiner further submits that the additional elements of “modifying a drilling or completion operation of a wellbore in the subsurface formation in response to one or more target age-attributed geometries and respective attributes” recited by claims 1, 10 and 18 when taken as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself nor integrates the abstract idea into a practical application since the “modifying a drilling or completion operation” is recited at a high level of generality, without describing what the “operation” is or how it is “modified”.
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.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 10 and 18 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Therefore the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections of claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 13-16, 18 and 20 over Baines and Imhof and 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 6, 9 and 17 over Baines, Imhof and Klinger have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams US 20120215628 A1 disclose a chronostratigraphic database comprising a plurality of discrete data points, wherein each data point comprises an x, y, z and T value, wherein x, y, and z are Cartesian coordinates describing a position and T is a geologic time event relative to said position (see abstract) and further disclose a chronostratigraphic modeling system comprises a database comprising a plurality of discrete surface and/or subsurface data points comprising spatial coordinates (x, y, z) and one or more attributes associated therewith, including a set of age-tagged data points wherein the one or more attributes comprises an age correlation (T) associated with the respective data point, wherein the database is searchable by age and spatial coordinates. William further discloses a chronostratigraphic modeling method, comprises searching a searchable database comprising a plurality of discrete subsurface data points comprising spatial coordinates (x, y, z) and one or more attributes associated therewith, including a set of age-tagged data points wherein the one or more attributes comprises an age correlation (T) associated with the respective data point, and displaying the selected data points in an isochron selected from points, lines, surfaces, volumes and combinations thereof (see para. 0008-0009); and converting the chronostratigraphic information to an x, y, z, T location and converting the geologic time period name or formation name into a corresponding specified age (see para. 0067, 0100, 0119).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857