The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 28 September 2023. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 3, 13, 18 are objected to.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 / 13 / 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites "cores data" where the base claim 1 / 10 / 16 uses "core data," creating an unnecessary terminology inconsistency that should be harmonized throughout the claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 / 10 / 16, the claim recites "performing... data preprocessing on core data and wireline data received from wells that have been drilled" (establishing a plurality of wells), but later recites "predicting... depositional environments for a well". It is unclear whether "a well" refers to one of the previously recited "wells," to a subset of un-cored wells among those wells, or to an entirely new well not previously introduced into the claim. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, "predicting... depositional environments for a well" is construed to be “predicting... depositional environments for an additional well of the wells”.
Regarding claims 2-9 / 11-15 / 17-20, which depend on above rejected claim 1 / 10 / 16, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 6 / 15, the claim recites "a depth chart showing model prediction and validation results". It is unclear whether "validation results" refers to the "results of the evaluating" recited in claim 1 / 10, or to a distinct data set (e.g., core-interpreted facies used to validate model predictions, as described in the specification at paragraph [0048]). Clarification of the relationship between "validation results" and the previously claimed "results of the evaluating" is required.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites a "sensitivity analysis that determines how accuracy of the model is affected by removal of input features." Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, establishes "significant features" as the operative claim term. It is unclear whether "input features" is coextensive with "significant features," a broader set of features from which "significant features" are selected, or a wholly distinct set. The metes and bounds of claim 8 cannot be determined absent clarification of this relationship, the claim is therefore indefinite. Clarification and/or claim amendment is required
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 recites "selecting... data acquisition intervals including at least sampling, testing, perforation intervals, pressure points, and side well cores." "Sampling," "testing," and "perforation" may reasonably be understood as types of depth intervals, but "pressure points" and "side well cores" are not intervals — they denote discrete physical locations or physical core samples, respectively (consistent with specification paragraph [0058], which separately refers to "pressure points and side well cores" as distinct from "data acquisition intervals"). As claimed, it is unclear whether "pressure points" and "side well cores" are intended as additional categories coordinate with "data acquisition intervals," or as improperly encompassed within the term "intervals" itself, the claim is therefore indefinite. Clarification and/or claim amendment (e.g., separating the interval-type acquisition parameters from the point/sample-type acquisition parameters) 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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 10 / 16,
Step 1: The claim recites a process / article of manufacturing / machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites
(a)“ performing, to generate pre-processed core and wireline data, data preprocessing on core data and wireline data received from wells that have been drilled; splitting the pre-processed core and wireline data into a training dataset and at least one testing dataset…” (mental process and/or math concept ), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “performing …data preprocessing on …”, “splitting the pre-processed core and wireline data …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses data analysis and processing for prediction models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(c) “….generating, using the pre-processed core and wireline data, a model that models relationships between core-based depositional environments and wireline logs for the wells, comprising: performing feature engineering on the pre-processed core and wireline data to identify significant features of the pre-processed core and wireline data that contribute to the model; … and evaluating, using machine learning on the testing dataset, the model; and predicting, as predicted depositional environments and using the model and results of the evaluating, depositional environments for a well” (mental process and/or math concept ), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “generating … a model …”, “performing … to identify …”, “evaluating … and predicting …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing data to generate a model for prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements “A computer-implemented …”, “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations …”, “A computer-implemented system …”, “training, using the training dataset and weighting the significant features, the model …”, “… using machine learning…”, which is mere instruction to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “A computer-implemented …”, “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations …”, “A computer-implemented system …”, “training, using the training dataset and weighting the significant features, the model …”, which is mere instruction to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-9 / 11-15 / 17-20 are dependent on claim 1 / 10 / 16, and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 10 / 16. Therefore, claims 2-9/ 11-15 / 17-20 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2 / 11 / 17, the claim recites element of “wherein performing the data preprocessing on the core data and wireline data includes labeling core interpretations, cleaning the core data and wireline data, removing data inconsistencies, and resolving missing data” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3 / 12 / 18, the claim recites element of “wherein splitting the pre-processed core and wireline data into a training dataset and at least one testing dataset includes splitting the pre- processed core and wireline data into a training set of 42% of cores data, a first testing set of 28% of the cores data, and a second testing set of 30% of the cores data” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4 / 13 / 19, the claim recites element of “wherein performing feature engineering on the pre-processed core and wireline data to identify significant features includes using machine learning with the model to identify respective contributions of different features for making predictions of depositional environments using the model” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5 / 14 / 20, the claim recites element of “wherein the respective contributions are represented as predictor weights weighting the significant features” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6 / 15, the claim recites element of “generating, using the predicted depositional environments and for display to a user, a depth chart showing model prediction and validation results” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites element of “wherein the depth chart includes, for each depth of a well, ML-predicted facies” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites element of “performing a sensitivity analysis that determines how accuracy of the model is affected by removal of input features” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process.
The claim recites additional element of “wherein training the model includes using the training dataset, weighting the significant features”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein training the model includes using the training dataset, weighting the significant features”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites element of “selecting, based at least on the predicted depositional environments, data acquisition intervals including at least sampling, testing, perforation intervals, pressure points, and side well cores” (mental process and/or math concept), which provides further details on data analysis for prediction model, which is a mental process. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-20.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 28 September 2023, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the independent claim 1 / 10 / 16, the primary reason for allowance is the inclusion of the specific process and system of splitting core and wireline data into training and testing sets, then weighting feature-engineered log predictors during model training and evaluation to predict depositional environments for un-cored wells.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The following are references close to the invention claimed:
Bailey et al., US-PGPUB No.20210165938A1 [hereafter Bailey] teaches generating model for wells. However, Bailey does not teach the specific claimed elements combination of splitting core and wireline data into training and testing sets, then weighting feature-engineered log predictors during model training and evaluation to predict depositional environments for un-cored wells.
Bize-Forest et al., US-PGPUB No.20190368316A1 [hereafter Bize-Forest] teaches petrophysical clustering of borehole log depths and rule-based classification of clusters into core depositional facies. However, Bize-Forest does not teach the specific claimed elements combination of splitting core and wireline data into training and testing sets, then weighting feature-engineered log predictors during model training and evaluation to predict depositional environments for un-cored wells.
Stafford et al., US-PGPUB No.20170059544A1 [hereafter Stafford] teaches building prediction model for depositional environment. However, Stafford does not teach the specific claimed elements combination of splitting core and wireline data into training and testing sets, then weighting feature-engineered log predictors during model training and evaluation to predict depositional environments for un-cored wells.
Male et al., "Centimeter-Scale Lithology and Facies Prediction in Cored Wells Using Machine Learning," Frontiers in Earth Science, June 2021 [hereafter Male] teaches training multiple machine-learning models on well-log and core data to predict lithology and facies at centimeter-scale resolution. However, Male does not teach the specific claimed elements combination of splitting core and wireline data into training and testing sets, then weighting feature-engineered log predictors during model training and evaluation to predict depositional environments for un-cored wells.
Al-Dajani et al., "Aeolian and fluvial depositional system discrimination in wireline logs: Unayzah formation, Central Saudi Arabia," SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstract, 2000 [hereafter Al-Dajani] teaches data analysis from wireline logs. However, Al-Dajani does not teach the specific claimed elements combination of splitting core and wireline data into training and testing sets, then weighting feature-engineered log predictors during model training and evaluation to predict depositional environments for un-cored wells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights