DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION is missing from the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on October 11, 2023 are not acceptable because:
1/ Lines, letters, and numbers are not legible, see 37 CFR 1.84(p): See Figs. 5’s, 6.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more hydrocarbon wells (claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note Regarding 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.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 11, and 17 recite an abstract idea of “identifying one or more entities within the well dataset, wherein each of the one or more entities has at least one corresponding well attribute and corresponding entity dates” (mental process), “generating a network graph of the one or more entities based on a similarity index between the one or more entities, wherein the similarity index utilizes the corresponding well attributes” (mental process), “identifying a first cluster of the one or more entities within the network graph, wherein the one or more entities within the first cluster correspond to a first hydrocarbon well of the one or more hydrocarbon wells” (mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application of the abstract idea, since the claims recite generating, on a display device, a visualization of the first hydrocarbon well including the one or more entities of the first cluster. The visualization of the first hydrocarbon well (practical application) is based on the one or more entities of the [identified] first cluster (abstract idea). Therefore, the abstract idea is used in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 17 and their respective dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 9 have already been recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davila et al. (US 2018/0066517) in view of Chow et al. (US 20130086501).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Davila et al. discloses a computer-implemented method for managing one or more hydrocarbon wells formed in the Earth's subsurface (well site drilling operation, Abstract, lines 1-2 implemented by a computer system, paragraph 0013; Fig. 10), the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a well dataset for the one or more hydrocarbon wells (obtaining well site data related to drilling, Abstract, lines 3-4);
identifying one or more entities within the well dataset (events of drilling operations, Abstract, lines 7-9), wherein each of the one or more entities has at least one corresponding well attribute (well site parameters in well site data. Abstract, lines 4-6) and corresponding entity dates (event dates, paragraph 0056);
generating a network graph of the one or more entities (paragraph 0049, lines 1-2; Figs. 4-8; where FIGS. 4-8 shows monitoring drilling operations at one or more well sites in a petroleum field, paragraph 0049, lines 2-5. The claimed network graph, e.g. 501, shown in Figs. 5’s of the application includes clusters of similar wells, 506, 508) based on a similarity index between the one or more entities (the events are related to a common well site(s), paragraph 0007), wherein the similarity index utilizes the corresponding well attributes (parameters common website are based on the common well site, Abstract, lines 4-6);
identifying one or more entities (operations by drilling system, paragraph 0028, lines 4-7; paragraph 0034, lines 1-4) within the network graph (Fig. 4 shows network graph of systems 200, 300, 400), wherein the one or more entities correspond to a first hydrocarbon well of the one or more hydrocarbon wells (operations of drilling system 200 correspond to the well site); and
generating, on a display device, a visualization of the first hydrocarbon well including the one or more entities of the first cluster (Fig. 4).
Davila et al. does not expressly disclose identifying a first cluster of the one or more entities within the network graph.
Chow et al. discloses identifying a first cluster of the one or more entities (displaying group(s) of related events, Abstract, lines 1-3) within the network graph (Fig. 3 shows a network graph of events)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Davila et al. with identifying a first cluster of the one or more entities as disclosed by Chow et al. for the purpose of displaying groups of related events.
Regarding claim 11, Davila et al. further discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (1010) having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor (1012) to perform operations (paragraph 0064, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Davila et al. further discloses
a processor (1012); and
a computer-readable medium (1010) having instructions stored thereon (paragraph 0064, lines 1-3) that are executable by the processor (paragraph 0064, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Davila et al. discloses the one or more entities include a hydrocarbon well job (paragraph 0028, lines 4-5), a hydrocarbon well activity (paragraph 0028, lines 4-5), and a public record.
It is noted that the one or more entities include a public record is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 4, Davila et al. does not disclose the visualization includes a timeline of the one or more entities of the first cluster displayed in chronological order based on the entity date, a Gantt chart of the one or more entities of the first cluster, and a cluster of the one or more entities of the first cluster.
Chow et al. discloses the visualization includes a cluster of the one or more entities of the first cluster (groups of events, Fig. 3, paragraph 0026).
It is noted that the visualization includes a timeline of the one or more entities of the first cluster displayed in chronological order based on the entity date, a Gantt chart of the one or more entities of the first cluster are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Davila et al. with identifying a first cluster of the one or more entities as disclosed by Chow et al. for the purpose of displaying groups of related entities/events.
Regarding claim 9, Davila et al. discloses
identifying the one or more entities within the network graph (200, Fig. 4, 200, paragraph 0028, lines 4-7, 300, Fig. 4, 300, paragraph 0034, lines 1-4), wherein the one or more entities correspond to a plurality of hydrocarbon wells of the one or more hydrocarbon wells (paragraph 0034, lines 1-4); and
generating, on a display device, the visualization of the plurality of hydrocarbon wells (Fig. 4).
Chow et al. discloses identifying the first cluster of the one or more entities within the network graph (displaying group(s) of related events, Abstract, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Davila et al. with identifying the first cluster of the one or more entities within the network graph as disclosed by Chow et al. for the purpose of displaying groups of related entities/events.
Regarding claim 10, Davila et al. discloses performing a wellbore operation based on the visualization (paragraph 0034, lines 1-4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davila et al. in view of Chow et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heidari (US 2023/0273179).
Regarding claim 3, Davila et al. as modified by Chow et al. discloses the claimed limitation as discussed above, except the well attributes include a well name, a hydrocarbon well identifier, and well surface location coordinates.
Heidari discloses well attributes include a well name (paragraph 0054, line 1-2), a hydrocarbon well identifier (well name, paragraph 0054, line 1-2), and well surface location coordinates (paragraph 0054, line 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Davila et al. as modified with well attributes include a well name, a hydrocarbon well identifier, and well surface location coordinates as disclosed by Heidari for the purpose of identifying the hydrocarbon well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a computer-implemented method and system for managing one or more hydrocarbon wells formed in the Earth's subsurface comprising tokenizing each of the well attributes for the respective entities; generating the similarity index between the one or more entities utilizing the tokenized well attributes for the respective entities (claims 5, 13, 18) or increasing a similarity threshold of the similarity index; wherein the similarity index for the one or more entities are above the similarity threshold (claims 6, 14, 19) or generating geo-spatial autocorrelation between the one or more entities to refine the first cluster (claims 7, 15, 20) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Potiagalov et al. (US 2017/0177744) discloses visualization of graph data by rendering a graph's structure based upon different node/edge types, rather than upon a total number of nodes and/or edges (Abstract, lines 1-4). Potiagalov et al. further discloses a node-level display includes a multiplicity of nodes of a same type (paragraph 0112, lines 1-3). Potiagalov et al. does not disclose a node of the network graph represents an entity, and wherein an edge of the network graph represents the similarity index between connected nodes.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 21, 2025