DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action (“Action”) on the merits to the application filed Aug. 30, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected as explained below.
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 submitted on Aug. 30, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and the cited information has been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 43 of the disclosure as filed states “phenonema in the second line. This should be amended to “phenomena” for spelling.
Paragraph 68 of the disclosure as filed states “Error! Reference source not found.” in two locations. These should be deleted.
Paragraph 69 of the disclosure as filed states “collets” in the second line. This should be amended to “collects” for spelling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine whether claimed subject matter is patent eligible section 2106 of the MPEP requires specific evaluation of the limitations recited. In step 1, a determination is made as to whether a claim is directed to a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter). If so, then a determination is made as to whether the claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, using a three part test: First, in step 2A, prong 1 the abstract idea is identified; Second, in step 2A, prong 2 the abstract idea is determined to be integrated into a practical application or not; and Third, in step 2B the additional claim limitations are evaluated individually and as a whole to determine if they amount to an inventive concept (i.e., determining whether the limitations are significantly more than the abstract idea itself).
While the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter (i.e., step 1 is satisfied because the claims are directed to an apparatus (claim 11-19), a process (claim 1-10), and an apparatus or article of manufacture (claim 20)), they are nonetheless patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more.
Initially, the following explanation is based not only on the guidance in the MPEP, but also the “2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence,” published on July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128) (AI-SME Update). Moreover, the Office has provided examples of patent ineligible subject matter that are relevant to the claimed subject matter of this application. In particular, examples 47 and 48,1 are relevant to the discussion below of claims 1-10 and should be reviewed for further guidance and support of the determination that claims 1-10 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are virtually identical in scope except for the statutory categories and some of the more minor aspects of the claim limitations. They all recite similar limitations directed to an abstract idea, specifically the recitation of mathematical concepts and mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I and III.
Claim 1, as a representative claim, recites with emphasis:
A method for evaluating and controlling a washout region of a wellbore placed in a formation, comprising:
obtaining information about the wellbore and the formation;
establishing a washout indicator function as a function of time and location;
computationally determining whether the washout region exists by calculating the washout indicator function on a cross section of the wellbore and the formation, at each depth in a specific depth range; and
upon finding presence of the washout region in the specific depth range, quantifying the washout region,
wherein the washout indicator function returns: a negative value for a point within the formation; a positive value for a point within the washout region; and zero for a point on a boundary between the washout region and the formation.
With the above in mind, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the emphasized limitations are given their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the specification and in light of the following comments. A “washout” is understood as a “[d]ilation of a wellbore diameter in a portion of a wellbore,” (Spec. as filed, ¶1), in other words, the “washout” is an area of the wellbore that is larger in diameter than the initial drilled wellbore.
Each of the limitations emphasized above are directed to a mathematical concept that can be performed in the human mind and/or on paper. The “establishing” and “computationally determining” limitations recite a function that is specifically based on “a function of time and location” and “a cross section of the wellbore and the formation,” which are mathematical. Spec. as filed, ¶¶67, 68. The remaining “quantifying” limitation and “wherein” clause are also directed to mathematical operations, where “quantifying” converts one value into another discrete number or value, and the “wherein” clause is merely mapping the result of the claimed function and assigning a negative value, positive value, or zero. Id. All of these limitations are directed to mathematical concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or on paper.
Since at least the emphasized limitations of claim 1 fall within the meaning of mental processes and mathematical concepts, they are taken together as a single abstract idea, to which the claims are directed. The same reasoning applies to independent claims 11 and 20 since they recite corresponding limitations as the emphasized limitations of claim 1 and are of virtually the same scope. The remaining limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 are addressed below. Thus, prong one of step 2A is satisfied and the analysis continues below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20
The invention describes several known issues when using current techniques and tools to determine the location and size of washout regions. These include, “the resolution of a multi-arm caliper is often too coarse for accurate identification of washout regions,” “[f]luid calipers fail to work if there is lost circulation or a turbulent flow … and they can only be used for estimating a washout size for cement casing.” Spec. as filed, ¶2. The described invention, therefore, improves and offers an “effective assessment and control system of washout areas to prevent a wellbore failure."
While the described invention may result in a more effective assessment and system to identify the washout area and prevent wellbore failure than previously known, claims 1, 11, and 20 do not recite or integrate any limitations that would tie the abstract idea noted above to this practical application. The claims, for example, do not do anything with the results of the washout indicator function. And while the claims recite additional limitations, such as, “obtaining information about the wellbore and the formation,” “a hardware processor, operatively connected to an interface and a memory,” and a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a hardware processor of a computer,” these are nothing more than data gathering or generically recited hardware components that do not meaningfully limit or show an integrated practical application. Since there are no limitations to show integration into a practical application, prong 2 of step 2A is satisfied and the analysis continues below.
Step 2B: Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20
The abstract idea identified above is embodied in the emphasized limitations recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20. These claims also recite, as noted above, “obtaining information about the wellbore and the formation,” “a hardware processor, operatively connected to an interface and a memory,” and a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a hardware processor of a computer.” These additional or remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more when taken individually or when combined as an order set of steps/functions with the limitations making up the abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining information about the wellbore and the formation,” is mere data gathering that does not show significantly more because it has been deemed insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). None of the “hardware processor,” “interface,” “memory,” or “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program” are recited in such a way so as to show a particular machine or specialized hardware that would be used to carry out the abstract idea, and thus, be significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(b). Moreover, even when considering all limitations together, the claims merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. As a result, these additional limitations are recited in such a way that shows nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity or mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e., abstract idea) using a generic computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), and 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Based on the analysis in steps 2A and 2B as explained above, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea without significantly more and are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-19
Claims 2, 6-8, 12, and 16-18 merely recite additional mathematical or mental process concepts without anything more, thus, these claims too are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2 and 12 recite, “identifying a cross-sectional area,” “dividing the cross-sectional area into sections,” “obtaining a summation of the sections,” and “determining a volume of the washout region” based on the summations. All of these are mathematical concepts that merely build off those already recited in the parent claims.
Claims 6 and 16 recite, “the washout indicator function is based on a wellbore stress model and a rock breakout failure criterion.” A “stress model” and “rock breakout failure criterion” are mathematical concepts that further define the “washout indicator function.” See e.g., Spec. as filed, ¶45.
Claims 7 and 17 recite, “the washout indicator function identifies the washout region using Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.” The Mohr-Coulomb is a model that specifies failure criterion is a mathematical concept. See e.g., Spec. as filed, ¶71.
Claims 8 and 18 recite, “setting a target of mud weight to be used in the wellbore.” To set a target is a simple mathematical concept.
All of these limitations recited in claims 2, 6-8, 12, and 16-18 are mathematical concepts and/or can be performed in the human mind. Thus, they do not add meaningful limits on the abstract idea itself and do not make the claims patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 13 recite additional information gathering with the limitation, “the information about the wellbore and the formation comprises: in-situ stress measurement; weight of mud within the specific depth range; and strength properties of rocks in the formation.” Claims 4 and 14 also recite additional information gathering with the limitation, “the information about the wellbore and the formation further comprises: for each depth in the specific depth range, a wellbore diameter, an inclination angle of the wellbore, and an azimuth of the wellbore.” Similarly, claims 5 and 15 recite additional information gathering with the limitation, “the information about the wellbore and the formation further comprises: a pore pressure of rocks in the formation.” As above, these limitations are nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself not only because they are just a slightly more detailed form of data gathering, but also because they are not used in any particular way in the claims. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 9 and 19 recite, albeit in slightly different ways, “altering a drilling rate for digging the wellbore.” While the act of “altering a drilling rate for digging the wellbore” is a practical application itself, the limitation is not at all tied back to the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d). As a result, this limitation, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, does not necessarily use or involve the abstract idea, thus, there is no integrated practical application, and these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites, “transmitting an alert of at least one of the following: the washout region of a predetermined size range; and the washout region expanding at a predetermined rate range.” Unlike claims 9 and 19, the limitation of claim 10 somewhat involves an aspect of the abstract idea (i.e., the “washout region”), however, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and also is merely transmitting information with no other limit placed on that information other than simply the transmission. Moreover, transmitting information is well-understood, routine, and convention activity that does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2160.05(d), subsection II.
As a result, none of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite significantly more than the abstract idea recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20 from which they respectively depend.
For the reasons explained above, none of claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible subject matter under section 101, and are thus, rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following are in the same field of measuring features of wellbores as the claimed invention: U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2012/0234600, 2015/0184504, 2021/0189875, 2021/0372270, U.S. Patent No. 4,346,594, WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO 2009/102735, and Great Britain Patent No. 2355307.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf.
Prosecution Insights