DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to claims 7 and 14 overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 112 (b). as such, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 do not overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “conducting a pilot analysis for the additional well” and “generating a lateral landing work flow based at least in part on the pilot hole analysis for the additional well” are further reciting abstract ideas. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claim does not require any action as currently worded.
Furthermore, the recitation of “drilling a pilot hole as a portion of the additional well” and “sidetracking a first lateral based up a lateral landing point selected in conjunction with the lateral landing workflow” are additional elements that do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas. The recitation of “drilling a pilot hole as a portion of the additional well” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim(s) add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, the recitation of “sidetracking a first lateral based up a lateral landing point selected in conjunction with the lateral landing workflow” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in that this limitation merely amounts to “apply it”. The step of “sidetracking a first lateral based upon a lateral landing point selected” and “geosteering a lateral…” recites a step of performing drilling using the abstract idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to the area of drilling or a computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Therefore, the rejection to claim 1 will be maintained. The rejection to claims 8 and 15 will also be maintained for similar reasons as claim 1.
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 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 21 are directed to a method (process), claims 8-14 are directed to a well control system (machine) and claims 15-20 are directed to a method (process). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis
in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites abstract limitations including (or substantially similar to):
“conducting a parametric production study for a plurality of wells during a development phase of the plurality of wells in a geological environment; deploying information relating to the parametric production study for use in design of an additional well; analyzing production intervals of the plurality of wells and the additional well to determine a best production interval, wherein the first production interval is determined based on an amount of intersection between a production interval and a productive sublayer derived from the pilot hole analysis; conducting a pilot hole analysis for a for the additional well; generating a lateral landing workflow based at least in part on the pilot hole analysis for the additional well; analyzing production dependence of the plurality of wells and the additional well on precise lateral landing; identifying a precise sublayer for lateral landing based at least in part on the best production interval and the production dependence”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and
paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of
the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners
evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional element of (or substantially similar to)
“drilling a pilot hole as a portion of the additional well”, “geosteering a second lateral of the additional well without human intervention and in accordance with information relating to the precise sublayer for lateral landing”. Claims 1 and 15 further recites “sidetracking a first lateral based upon a lateral landing point selected in conjunction with the lateral landing workflow”. Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of “one or more processors configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in storage media of the well control system”.
The recitation of “drilling a pilot hole as a portion of the additional well” includes additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of us. The recitation of “sidetracking a first lateral based upon a lateral landing point selected in conjunction with the lateral landing workflow”, “geosteering a second lateral of the additional well without human intervention and in accordance with information relating to the precise sublayer for lateral landing” and “one or more processor” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the recitation of “drilling a pilot hole as a portion of the additional well” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim(s) add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Furthermore, as taught by Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), additional elements of “cellular telephones” did limit the use of the abstract idea of “providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content”, however the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The recitation of “sidetracking a first lateral based upon a lateral landing point selected in conjunction with the lateral landing workflow”, “geosteering a lateral of the additional well in accordance with information relating to the precise sublayer for lateral landing” and “one or more processor” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in that these elements merely about to “apply it”. The step of “sidetracking a first lateral based upon a lateral landing point selected” and “geosteering a lateral…” are merely steps of performing drilling using the using the abstract ideas and the limitation of the “processor” contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add
significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 further adds to the abstract ideas because one of ordinary skill in the art can perform the steps claimed in the mind or using pen and paper. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art can conduct a production study of “well placement, fracturing strategy, completion type…”(claims 2, 9, 16) using pen and paper or analyze data in the mind to perform said study. As such, nothing in the claims preclude the aforementioned limitation from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claims 1, 8 and 15 , the limitations of these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and are not significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are not allowed due to the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
However, claims 1, 8 and 15 have not been rejected with prior art. The closest prior art to the claims is Al-AbdulJabber et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20220316327).
Regarding claim 1, Al-AbdulJabber teaches a method, comprising:
conducting a parametric production study for a plurality of wells during a development phase of the plurality of wells in a geological environment (The BDN expert system combines offset wells (e.g., nearby well) data, including drilling data and production data (parameters), with the various types of data available for the candidate drilling area to enable decision making that is more efficient and more accurate; pp[0023], [0024],[0027]);
deploying information relating to the parametric production study for use in design of an additional well (data associated with wells located in the vicinity of a candidate drilling location (hereinafter also “offset well data”) is used in the BDN model to identify the best direction and layer for wellbore placement; pp[0027]);
analyzing production intervals of the plurality of wells and the additional well to determine a best production interval (“data associated with wells located in the vicinity of a candidate drilling location (hereinafter also “offset well data”) is used in the BDN model to identify the best direction and layer for wellbore placement”; pp[0030]);
analyzing production dependence of the plurality of wells and the additional well on precise lateral landing (“The geophysical information available for existing wells in the vicinity of a candidate drilling area provide valuable data for determining an accurate placement of a new well (e.g., the well 102) and its lateral wellbores that result in high production of hydrocarbons from the new well”; pp[0030]);
identifying a precise sublayer for lateral landing based at least in part on the best production interval and the production dependence; and geosteering a lateral of the additional well in accordance with information relating to the precise sublayer for lateral landing (As the new well is built and laterals are drilled in the planned direction, additional geophysical and geo-mechanical data pertaining to the new well and its laterals are gathered using various available tools (e.g., sensors) and technologies, for continuous productivity analysis of the new well; pp[0030], [0053]. The steps of “identifying a precise sub layer for later landing…” and “geosteering a lateral…” are met because laterals have been drilled from the new well at sublayers that have “high production of hydrocarbons”.).
Al-AbdulJabber is silent regarding drilling a pilot hole as a portion of the additional well;
conducting a pilot hole analysis for the additional well;
generating a lateral landing workflow based at least in part on the pilot hole analysis for the additional well;
sidetracking a first lateral based upon a lateral landing point selected in conjunction with the lateral landing workflow; and
geosteering a second lateral of the additional well without human intervention and in accordance with information relating to the precise sublayer for lateral landing.
It would not be obvious to modify Al-AbdulJabber with the above limitations as it would require significant redesign to the method of Al-AbdulJabber. Furthermore, no prior art was found, alone or in combination with Al-AbdulJabber, to teach the above features. Therefore, such modifications would be based on impermissible hindsight reasoning. For the above reasons, Al-AbdulJabber does not read on claim 1.
Al-AbdulJabber does not read on claims 8 and 15 for similar reasons as discussed for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676