DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Is the claim directed to a statutory category?
Yes. The claims are to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 11), a non-transitory medium (claim 20).
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a system (claim 1), a method (claim 4), a non-transitory medium (claim 5), for autonomously performing a subsurface operation, comprising: The step of: “determining real-time data associated with the subsurface operation”; “building a first model based at least on the real-time data, wherein the first model includes a first set of elements, wherein the first set of elements includes a first subset of features from a design of the subsurface operation”; “setting operational setpoints based at least on the calculated objectives”; “managing production based at least upon the operational setpoints”; “building a second model based at least on the real-time data, wherein the second model includes a second set of elements, wherein the second set of elements includes a second subset of the features from the design of the subsurface operation, wherein the first set of elements is smaller than the second set of elements”; “determining a field development scenario associated with the subsurface operation based at least upon the second model”, “validating the first model, wherein the validating includes ensuring that the first model meets a threshold of performance” (claim 11) and the additional limitation of claim 20 could further fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation, under a mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept. The further steps of: “calculating objectives for the subsurface operation using the first model”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “one or more processors”, “a memory system”, “one or more non-transitory … media”, “instructions”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0061-0066], and fig.5) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0066]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “receiving electronic communications from devices associated with the subsurface operation” of claim 11 (pre-solution data gathering), “adjusting pre-selected of the second set of elements to match historic data associated with the subsurface operation”; “optimizing the second set of elements for the subsurface operation”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under insignificant post-solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and further in claim 11 “updating the first model based at least on the calculated objectives;
setting operational setpoints based at least on the calculated objectives; providing the operational setpoints to a platform as desired settings” are WURC pre/post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “one or more processors”, “a memory system”, “one or more non-transitory … media”, “instructions”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0061-0066], and fig.5) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0066]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “adjusting pre-selected of the second set of elements to match historic data associated with the subsurface operation”; “optimizing the second set of elements for the subsurface operation”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under insignificant post-solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
3.2 Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 merely include limitations pertaining to: (claim 2), “validating the first model, wherein the validating includes ensuring that the first model meets a threshold of performance” (mental process). (claim 3); “continuing to build the first model if the first model does not meet the threshold” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 4); “calculating objectives for the subsurface operation using the first model if the first model meets the threshold” (mathematical concept); (claim 5); “optimizing the calculated objectives for the subsurface operation” (mathematical concept); (claim 6); “receiving electronic communications from devices associated with the subsurface operation” (data gathering); (claim 7) “wherein the electronic communications include real-time remote operation and asset information, the electronic communications include desired settings associated with the subsurface operation, the devices include edge and Internet-of-Things (IOT) devices, and the electronic communications are received by a platform processing data from the edge and IOT devices and from one or more processors” (WURC components); (claim 8) “providing the operational setpoints to the platform as the desired settings” (data gathering); (claim 9) “designing a surface facility associated with the subsurface operation based at least upon the second model; and determining subsurface operation targets based at least upon the second model” (mental process); (claim 10) “wherein the real-time data comprises:
pressures, virtual flowrates, and equipment status” (mental process); all of which further amount to further mental process and/or mathematical concept similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4.1 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims provide for optimizing the second set of elements…; however, it is clear how said optimization can be accomplished, as the claims do not set forth what is used as input in the optimization which leads to lack of clarity in the claims. Independent claims 11 and 20 inherit the same defect based on similar recitations; and further “optimizing the calculated objectives…” in claim 5, 15, 20. Further clarification is respectfully requested in response to this office correspondence.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
5.1 Zagayevskiy et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2021/0149077) teaches a method for history matching a reservoir model based on actual production data from the reservoir over time generates an ensemble of reservoir models using geological data representing petrophysical properties of a subterranean reservoir.
5.2 Madasu et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2021/0270998) teaches a history-matched oilfield model that facilitates well system operations for an oilfield is generated using a Bayesian optimization of adjustable parameters based on an entire production history.
5.3 Khan et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2021/0311217) teaches a method for evaluating simulation models of a hydrocarbon field includes merging simulated reservoir data and actual reservoir data to generate merged reservoir data, and calculating one or more subsurface metrics from at least one of the merged reservoir data and the three-dimensional model data, and one or more overall history match indicators, and one or more subsurface history match indicators from the one or more surface metrics.
5.4 Ella et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,195,401) teaches systems and methods for managing production of subterranean reservoirs, including upstream production systems.
6. claims 1-20 are rejected and this action is non-final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights