Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s RCE for application number 18/416,487 received on 06/30/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-20 are amended, currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Regarding the §103 rejections previously applied to the original claims, upon review of the amended claims, the rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the claims have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 7): “Applicant submits that the claims satisfy at least Step 2A of the two-part analysis, at least in accordance with the MPEP and with the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Guidance") issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Thus, claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea.
The Guidance sets forth a revised procedure for evaluating claims in Step 2A. Prong one of the procedure includes an evaluation as to whether the claims recite a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Prong two of the procedure includes an evaluation as to whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims fail the eligibility inquiry because the limitations recite abstract steps that fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper), and the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping for mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Furthermore, the additional elements recited by the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, fail to add significantly more, and fail to represent an improvement to technology because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h), and to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering, insignificant application). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 8): “Claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea, at least because the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The claims provide a meaningful result in the form of, for example, "based on the acquired sensor data and the break even threshold, performing the first action, wherein the first action including adjusting the drilling parameter." The above-mentioned limitations are not merely an attempt to generally link the claimed invention to a technological environment, but instead represent practical results that provide improvements in downhole operations such as drilling operations. Examples of such improvements are discussed at least at paragraph [0016] of the specification.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as documented in the 101 rejections of the instant office action, the claims recite abstract steps that fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper), and the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping for mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably estimate a probability and calculate a break-even threshold via evaluation and/or with the help of pen and paper. The claim limitations also fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping because they recite mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For example, “calculating a break even threshold based on the first probability and the second probability”, “wherein the first action is performed based on: P_sub_NA * C_sub_NA + 1 - P_sub_NA)*C_sub_NA.not > P_sub_A* C_sub_A+(1 - P_sub_A*C_sub_ANot + C_sub_ADJUSTMENT, wherein C_sub_ADJUSTMENT is a cost associated with an adjustment of a drilling parameter;”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), and 101 rejections below for further details.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claims 1-14 are directed to a Method (i.e., Process), and claims 15-20 are directed to a System (i.e., Machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claim 1 recites a method for performing a drilling operation. As drafted, the limitations recited by claim 1 fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper), and the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping for mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
The abstract limitations of claim 1 include: “estimating a first probability P_sub_A of a drilling scenario manifesting if a first action is performed, and estimating a second probability P_sub_NA of the drilling scenario manifesting if the first action is not performed or a second action is performed; calculating a break even threshold based on the first probability and the second probability, the break even threshold calculated based on a set of costs including a first cost C_sub_A of performing the first action to mitigate the drilling scenario and a second cost C_sub_NA associated with the drilling scenario if the first action is not performed or the second action is performed, wherein the cost C_sub_NA is a cost if the scenario manifests and the first action is not performed or the second action is performed, the cost C_sub_A is a cost if the scenario manifests and the first action is performed, and the set of costs includes a cost C_sub_NA.not if the scenario does not manifest and the first action is not performed or the second action is performed, and a cost C_sub_NA.not if the scenario does not manifest and the first action is performed, wherein the first action is performed based on: P_sub_NA * C_sub_NA + 1 - P_sub_NA)*C_sub_NA.not > P_sub_A* C_sub_A+(1 - P_sub_A*C_sub_ANot + C_sub_ADJUSTMENT, wherein C_sub_ADJUSTMENT is a cost associated with an adjustment of a drilling parameter;”. These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of additional elements in the claims, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Furthermore, these limitations also fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping for mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Independent claim 15 recites a system for performing a drilling operation with limitations that are substantially similar to those set forth in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis applies to claim 15.
Dependent claims 2-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce any additional elements for consideration under said steps. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract ideas as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely a processing device including a processor from independent claim 15, this additional element has been evaluated but fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
With respect to the steps for acquiring sensor data during a drilling operation from independent claims 1/15, these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because at most, they amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to the steps for based on the acquired sensor data and the break even threshold, performing the first action, wherein performing the first action includes adjusting the drilling parameter. from independent claims 1/15, these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because at most, they amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., insignificant application), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract ideas (“mathematical concepts” and “mental processes”) as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself, along with the same or substantially same additional elements addressed.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely a processing device including a processor from independent claim 15, this additional element has been evaluated but fails to add significantly more to the claims because it amounts to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Therefore, the computing additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
With respect to the steps for acquiring sensor data during a drilling operation from independent claims 1/15, these additional elements fail to add significantly more to the claims because at most, they amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering), which does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the mere data gathering insignificant extra-solution activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
With respect to the steps for based on the acquired sensor data and the break even threshold, performing the first action, wherein performing the first action includes adjusting the drilling parameter. from independent claims 1/15, these additional elements fail to add significantly more because at most, they amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., insignificant application), which does not add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract ideas (“mathematical concepts” and “mental processes”) as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself, along with the same or substantially same additional elements addressed above under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, which is incorporated herein.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Regarding Claims 1 and 15: the claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. With respect to claims 1 and 15, the prior art of the record teaches:
From Ringer et al. (US 20180171774 A1):
acquiring sensor data during a drilling operation performed in a subterranean region; ([0119] teaches a method can operate in real-time or near real-time as may be appropriate for a drilling operation; [0136] teaches receiving data, which may include sensor data from one or more sensors.);
estimating a first probability PA of a drilling scenario manifesting if a first action is performed, and estimating a second probability PNA of the drilling scenario manifesting if the first action is not performed or a second action is performed; ([0135] teaches the probability that a particular event will occur. As an example, a Bayesian belief network (e.g., a Bayesian network) can be conducive to understanding a scenario or scenarios as they can be constructed such that a parent(s) of a variable can be a direct cause.);
wherein the cost CNA is a cost if the scenario manifests and the first action is not performed or the second action is performed, the cost CA is a cost if the scenario manifests and the first action is performed, and the set of costs includes a cost CNA,not if the scenario does not manifest and the first action is not performed or the second action is performed, and a cost CA,not if the scenario does not manifest and the first action is performed, ([0135] teaches calculating weights or values of an action based on a Bayesian probabilistic model, wherein the probability means the particular event will occur, and the weight or value can be a cost associated with the action, for a single scenario, or multiple scenarios.);
wherein performing the first action includes adjusting the drilling parameter. ([0094] where the first engineering service provider rejects or otherwise suggests an adjustment to a well trajectory, the well trajectory may be adjusted or a message or other notification sent to the G&G service provider requesting such modification.
based on the acquired sensor data…, performing the first action. ([0204] teaches a GUI with an analysis tab and a what if? tab to enable a user to assess results for one or more scenarios to understand better one or more actions to take with respect to the field operations at one or more wells.).
From Bryant et al. (US 20100174489 A1):
calculating a break even threshold based on the first probability and the second probability, the break even threshold calculated… ([0060] teaches The CES metric represents the probability that the prospect will be economically feasible. The CES metric is preferably derived by estimating the recoverable hydrocarbon volume for the prospect (e.g., in MMBO) that the company requires in order to "break even" economically.);
and based on the break even threshold, performing the first action, ([0062] The AEC metric is the resource level around which a project team would plan (facilities size, logistical considerations, etc.). The AEC metric is preferably calculated as the mean of all of the cumulative-frequency-plot values greater than the "break even" value of the CES metric.
However, the prior art of the record does not teach the claim limitation of: wherein the first action is performed based on: PNA * CNA + (1 – PNA) * CNA,not≥ PA * CA + (1 – PA) * CA,not + CADJUSTMENT, wherein CADJUSTMENT is a cost associated with an adjustment of a drilling parameter.
As drafted, claims 1 and 15 are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
McManus et al. ("Well Planning: A Risk Management Process." Paper presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, June 2012) discloses the probabilities of an event happening (% probability), and an event not happening (1 - % probability). It also discloses the costs associated with different scenarios where the event happens, and using a Monte Carlo simulation of the model that can provide an overall probability for success or failure of the well in addition to the sensitivity analysis of variables critical to the project success. Time and costs can also be incorporated into the model to fully evaluate the impact of the critical issue to the economic value of the project.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While McManus discloses these features, McManus does not disclose the equation of claims 1 and 15. Therefore, the present claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. However, these claims are not in condition for allowance because they remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth in the instant office action. See the detailed rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bruns et al. (WO 2022094167 A1), which discloses a method for a control action for a hydraulic fracturing operation of a well, using a trained machine learning model that predicts treatment pressure of the hydraulic fracturing operation, determining if the control action increases efficiency; if the control action increases efficiency, assessing viability of the control action with respect to one or more predefined criteria; and, if the control action is viable, issuing the control action for implementation during the hydraulic fracturing operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights