DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination based on the application filed on June 29, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. Thus, the claims overcome the prior art of record. The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
This action is made non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on June 29, 2023 and November 12, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “WELL 102” and “DRILLING 110” have both been used to point to and designate the drilling system in FIG. 1 as they are both. Furthermore, FIG. 5B does not have any units on the axis labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term “JAVA”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 8, which cites “permeability data, and porosity data, or open fracture data” in Ln. 4-5, should be “permeability data, [[”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Regarding claim 14, such claim limitation is the “stimulation control system”. Claims 15-18 will also be interpreted based on their claim dependencies.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 14 recites “the stimulation control system is configured to perform a hydraulic stimulation operation based on the first predicted HIP data”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed hydraulic stimulation operation is a ruggedized computer system, e.g., a programmable logic controllers (see Para. 0019, “control systems (e.g., a stimulation control system or a control system in a drilling system)” and Para. 0022, “The control system (114) may include hardware and/or software for managing drilling operations and/or maintenance operations. For example, the control system (114) may include one or more programmable logic controllers (PLCs) that include hardware and/or software with functionality to control one or more processes performed by the drilling system (110). Specifically, a programmable logic controller may control valve states, fluid levels, pipe pressures, warning alarms, and/or pressure releases throughout a drilling rig. In particular, a programmable logic controller may be a ruggedized computer system with functionality to withstand vibrations, extreme temperatures, wet conditions, and/or dusty conditions, for example, around a drilling rig. Without loss of generality, the term "control system" may refer to a drilling operation control system that is used to operate and control the equipment, a data acquisition and monitoring system that is used to acquire equipment data and to monitor one or more well operations, or a well interpretation software system that is used to analyze and understand well events, such as drilling progress”). Therefore, the interpretation of the “the stimulation control system” in claim 14 is a programmable logic controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 14-18 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine; and claims 19-20 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 14, and 19: The limitations of
“determining a plurality of temporal features based on the first temporal production data and a first extraction process, wherein the first extraction process comprises a deconvolution function that separates a portion of the plurality of temporal features from the predetermined production rate”,
“determining first predicted hydrocarbon-in-place (HIP) data for the geological region of interest using the first reservoir data, the first hydraulic fracturing data, the first static wellbore data, and the plurality of temporal features”, and
“perform a hydraulic stimulation operation based on the first predicted HIP data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitation can be performed as the following:
a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper perform a Fast Fourier Transform on gas production rate and production time to easily separate the time component of the signal,
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a gas-phase molar ratio using a kerogen maturity map to find the chemical composition of the gas that is solved using pore pressure, injection rate, and separated time component,
a person can mentally update or draw with pen and paper a drilling plan by changing the planned path of a drill to reach a location in the well that contains a desirable hydrocarbon-in-place composition.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 14, and 19 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 14, and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“by a computer processor”, “by the computer processor and using a machine-learning model”, “A system, comprising: a stimulation control system coupled to a wellbore; and a reservoir simulator coupled to the stimulation control system, wherein the reservoir simulator comprises a computer processor”, “wherein the stimulation control system is configured”, “A system, comprising: a drilling system comprising a plurality of sensors and a drill string comprising a drill bit, wherein the drilling system is coupled to a wellbore” are merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional element,
“wherein the drilling system is configured to perform a drilling operation for a well path based on the predicted HIP data” is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional element,
“obtaining first reservoir data, first hydraulic fracturing data, and first static wellbore data for a geological region of interest”, “obtaining first temporal production data for the geological region of interest, wherein the first temporal production data comprises a predetermined production rate with respect to a predetermined period of time”, and “transmitting, by the computer processor, a command to a well control system based on the first predicted HIP data” are merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution and extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 14, and 19 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 14, and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components and mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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); … ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 14, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 20, they recite additional limitations:
“obtaining maturity data regarding in-place organic material within the geological region of interest”,
“determining, using a second extraction process, a maturity feature from the maturity data”, and
“wherein the maturity feature is used to determine the first predicted HIP data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be performed as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper kerogen quantity information from a kerogen maturity map of the area,
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper areas are close to one another that have high kerogen quantity from the determined kerogen quantity information, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a gas-phase molar ratio for the areas that have high kerogen quantity to find the chemical composition of the gas that is solved using pore pressure, injection rate, and separated time component.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 2, 16, and 20, they recite an additional element recitation of “by the machine-learning model” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 16, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, they recite additional limitations of “wherein the maturity data comprise a maturity map that describes a plurality of kerogen quantities in the geological region of interest” and “wherein the maturity map is acquired using a plurality of drill cutting samples or a plurality of core samples from a plurality of wells”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper kerogen quantity information from a kerogen maturity map of the area, and a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper kerogen quantity information from a kerogen maturity map of the area from samples acquired from the well in the area using a drill.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, they recite an additional limitation of “obtaining a selection of a plurality of wells” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally choose or draw with a pen and paper a couple of wells from an area that contains multiple wells for further analysis.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 and 18, they recite an additional element recitation of “performing a training operation on the machine-learning model iteratively using the training data until second predicted HIP data that is generated by the machine-learning model satisfies a predetermined criterion” is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Additionally, the additional element recitation of “obtaining training data comprising second reservoir data, second hydraulic fracturing data, second static production data, and second temporal production data for the plurality of wells” is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution and extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the first extraction process separates a plurality of predetermined gas rates and a plurality of respective gas time periods using a plurality of exponential decay curves”, and “wherein the plurality of temporal features correspond to the plurality of predetermined gas rates and the plurality of respective gas time periods”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper perform a Fast Fourier Transform on gas production rate and production time with provided decay curves to easily separate the time component of the signal.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first temporal production data comprises gas production rate data” is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution and extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first temporal production data comprises gas specific density data, carbon dioxide composition data, δ13 C composition data, methane composition data, liquid phase data, choke size data, or well head pressure data” is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution and extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the first predicted HIP data comprises molar ratio data of gas phase”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a gas-phase molar ratio using a kerogen maturity map to find the chemical composition of the gas that is solved using pore pressure, injection rate, and separated time component.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first reservoir data comprises geological data regarding one or more formation layers reservoir fluid data, reservoir pore pressure data, gamma ray log data, density log data, neutron long data, resistivity log data, permeability data, and porosity data, or open fracture data” is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution and extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first hydraulic fracturing data comprises fracturing fluid data for a stimulation operation, injection rate data for a stimulation operation, injection consequence data, and hydraulic fracture geometry data” is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution and extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first static wellbore data comprises well location data, well tubing data, and number of fractures adjacent to a wellbore” is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution and extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11, it recites additional limitations of “determining a sweet spot region in the geological region of interest using the first predicted HIP data” and “determining a stimulation operation based on the sweet spot region and the first predicted HIP data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper that the if the gas-phase molar ratio is higher than a desired threshold then it is the location where drilling should take plan in the area, and a person can mentally update or draw with pen and paper a drilling plan by changing the planned path of a drill to reach a location in the well that contains a desirable hydrocarbon-in-place composition that is above the desired threshold.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the command that is transmitted to the well control system is configured to cause performance of the stimulation operation” is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an additional limitation of “determining a well path in the geological region of interest using the first predicted HIP data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally update or draw with pen and paper a drilling plan by changing the planned path of a drill to reach a location in the well that contains a desirable hydrocarbon-in-place composition that is above the desired threshold.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the well control system is a drilling system, and wherein the command causes the drilling system to perform a drill operation based on the well path” is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the machine-learning model is an artificial neural network comprising an input layer, a plurality of hidden layers, and an output layer” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 15, it recites an additional element recitation of “a user device coupled to the stimulation control system, wherein the user device is configured to provide a graphical user interface for presenting the first predicted HIP data” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-13, claims 15-18, and claim 20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 1, 14, and 19, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art.
The limitations of claims 1, 14, and 19 include extracting temporal components from hydraulic fracturing production rates and production time using a deconvolution process to calculate hydrocarbon-in-place (HIP) in a well in combination with the all of the remaining limitations. The closest prior art references of record are:
Bhattacharya, Shuvajit, Payam Kavousi Ghahfarokhi, Timothy R. Carr, and Scott Pantaleone. "Application of predictive data analytics to model daily hydrocarbon production using petrophysical, geomechanical, fiber-optic, completions, and surface data: A case study from the Marcellus Shale, North America." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 176 (2019): 702-715 teaches using log data from daily averages to compute hydrocarbon production using machine learning models,
Suarez-Rivera, Roberto, Evan Kias, John Degenhardt, Angelica Rios Alvarez, Rabah Mesdour, Shannon Eichmann, and Anuj Gupta. "Compaction in unconventional carbonate reservoir rocks and its effect on well completions and hydraulic fracturing." In SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, p. D031S059R003. URTEC, 2023 teaches developing a program having hydraulic fracturing data and core samples testing to determine mechanical properties in unconventional carbonate reservoir rocks,
Paris Castellano, Andrea Gloreinaldy. "Predicting Reservoir Quality in Organic-rich Bakken Shales, North Dakota, Using 3D Seismic and Petrophysical Analysis." (2023) teaches determining total organic carbon content in organic rich fractured shale to find parameters to increase reservoir quality,
Liu, Rui, and Siddharth Misra. "Machine learning assisted recovery of subsurface energy: A review." (2020) teaches machine learning methods to determine the sweet spots of fractured hydrocarbon reservoirs including organic-rich shales by their physical properties, and 22
Hui, Gang, Zhangxin Chen, Jun Yan, Muming Wang, Hai Wang, Dongmei Zhang, and Fei Gu. "Integrated evaluations of high-quality shale play using core experiments and logging interpretations." Fuel 341 (2023): 127679. teaches determine high-quality shale factors such as porosity and gas saturation from samples and well data as factors that influence TOC.
These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including extracting temporal components from hydraulic fracturing production rates and production time using a deconvolution process to calculate hydrocarbon-in-place in combination with the all of the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 19, as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. Claims 2-13, claims 15-18, and claim 20 would be allowable because they are dependent on claims 1, 14, and 19, respectively.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights