DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea of determining if yield pressure limits present a potential leak problem in water injection hydraulic simulations, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of “generating respective water injection hydraulic simulation models for a plurality of injection wells in a water injection network, the water injection network comprising a plurality of well completion segments;” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to model a series of well segments. Additionally, the limitation of “generating, using the respective water injection hydraulic simulation models, respective simulated pressure profiles for the plurality of injection wells at one or more injection rates;” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what the pressure profile of a segment will be based in an injection rate. Additionally, the limitation of “determining respective internal yield pressure limits for the plurality of well completion segments;” covers mental processes including evaluating the well completion segments to determine their yield pressure limits. Additionally, the limitation of “determining, based on the respective internal yield pressure limits and the respective simulated pressure profiles, a potential leak problem in the water injection network; and” covers mental processes including evaluating the well completion segments to determine if based on the applied pressure profile, if they have a potential leaking problem. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 8, the additional element of “one or more processors”, as well as “one or more computers” and “non-transitory computer storage medium”, in claim 15, as well as “a steady-state multiphase flow simulation software” in claims 2, 9 and 16 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “maintaining up-to-date versions of the respective water injection hydraulic simulation models based on real-time injection data”, in claims 3, 10 and 17 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “performing a corrective action to resolve the potential leak problem” recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 only amounts to mere instructions to apply 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 MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 8, the additional element of “one or more processors”, as well as “one or more computers” and “non-transitory computer storage medium”, in claim 15, as well as “a steady-state multiphase flow simulation software” in claims 2, 9 and 16 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “maintaining up-to-date versions of the respective water injection hydraulic simulation models based on real-time injection data”, in claims 3, 10 and 17 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “performing a corrective action to resolve the potential leak problem” recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 only amounts to mere instructions to apply 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 MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to further defining an injection rate as a baseline rate, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to further defining the determination of a damaged segment and a calculation method (Mathematical Concept) to devalue the segment (See SPEC [0027]-[0028]), which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 are directed to further defining the calculation method (Mathematical Concept) to devalue the segment (See SPEC [0027]-[0028]), which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Favero, Tunget, Alhuraifi and Sydansk. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including determining a potential leak problem in relation to internal yield pressure limits and performing a corrective action, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-20 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Al-Hajri et al. “ Calculating Casing Leak Cross Flow Rate Using Surface Injection Data”: Also teaches the determination of a leak in relation to the pressure in a pipe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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 at 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights