DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 12/1/2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite “A computer-implemented method for drilling a wellbore in the Earth’s subsurface”. However the claims are not directed towards drilling a wellbore, they are directed towards generating images of formations.
Claims 4, 13 and 20 recite “wherein the one or more geological features include color and texture”. The claim provides the option of only one geological feature, but then includes two features. It is unclear if the claim should read as “color or texture”.
Claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 claim a method, medium and system. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of process, article of manufacture and machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A computer-implemented method for drilling a wellbore in the Earth’s subsurface, the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining one or more geological descriptions of one or more geological formations within the Earth’s subsurface while drilling the wellbore;
generating, via a learning machine, respective images of the one or more geological formations based on one or more geological descriptions (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves generating images. The step is simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the images. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “obtaining one or more geological descriptions of one or more geological formations within the Earth’s subsurface while drilling the wellbore” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “obtaining one or more geological descriptions of one or more geological formations within the Earth’s subsurface while drilling the wellbore” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 10 and 17 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20.
Claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims involve generating images determining, and estimating. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the images. Thus, limitations also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present result oriented “apply it” language. In particular, claim 9 recites the additional limitation “performing a wellbore operation based on the images”(MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). The claim recites the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting any detail on how it is accomplished. The claim itself makes no attempt to explain what wellbore operation is performed. It is entirely result-oriented and coverts "any attempt to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards result oriented “apply it” language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200183047 A1 (“Denli”).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Denli teaches:
A computer-implemented method for drilling a wellbore in the Earth’s subsurface
(Denli: ) the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining one or more geological descriptions of one or more geological formations within the Earth’s subsurface while drilling the wellbore (Denli: para [0051], ““obtaining” data generally refers to any method or combination of methods of acquiring, collecting, or accessing data, including, for example, directly measuring or sensing a physical property, receiving transmitted data, selecting data from a group of physical sensors, identifying data in a data record, and retrieving data from one or more data libraries”);
generating, via a learning machine, respective images of the one or more geological formations based on one or more geological descriptions (Denli: para [0063], “the model is trained to generate realistic images from scratch, such as by inputting random noise), or conditioned or supervised (e.g., in addition to inputting random noise, the network is given “conditions” to encourage it to create realistic images that are also consistent with some structure, such as structural framework or seismic data or petrophysical data or log data)”).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Denli teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising:
determining, for the learning machine, a feature set including a geological description feature and a geological image feature; and configuring the learning machine to receive the feature set as input (Denli: para [0064], “The GAN may receive various inputs, such as any one, any combination, or all of: conditioning information; latent code; or noise to generate a realization of the reservoir geology. Further, in one implementation, the GAN may generate the multiple reservoir models using one or more fixed inputs (such as the seismic image) and other varying inputs (such as the latent code and/or the noise)”; para [0063], “(e.g., where the model is trained to generate realistic images from scratch, such as by inputting random noise), or conditioned or supervised (e.g., in addition to inputting random noise, the network is given “conditions” to encourage it to create realistic images that are also consistent with some structure, such as structural framework or seismic data or petrophysical data or log data)”).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Denli teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7 further comprising:
training the learning machine to generate images of the geological formations based on a plurality of training samples, the training samples including geological description samples and geological image samples (Denli: para [0064], “The GAN may receive various inputs, such as any one, any combination, or all of: conditioning information; latent code; or noise to generate a realization of the reservoir geology. Further, in one implementation, the GAN may generate the multiple reservoir models using one or more fixed inputs (such as the seismic image) and other varying inputs (such as the latent code and/or the noise)”; para [0063], “e.g., where the model is trained to generate realistic images from scratch, such as by inputting random noise), or conditioned or supervised (e.g., in addition to inputting random noise, the network is given “conditions” to encourage it to create realistic images that are also consistent with some structure, such as structural framework or seismic data or petrophysical data or log data”; para [0102], “generative model trained with the paired samples from the structural framework and its seismic image (FIGS. 9(b) and 11(a) respectively of Regone et al. 2017) are shown in the second column of FIGS. 9 and 10 (1150, 1250). As shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, the generative model successfully mimics what it learned from the training data and outputs a realistic models in the sense of the training set”).
Regarding claim 9, Denli teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising:
performing a wellbore operation based on the images (Denli: para [0108], “drilling a well, and/or causing a well to be drilled, based at least in part upon the one or more generated geological models and data representations discussed herein (e.g., such that the well is located based at least in part upon a location determined from the models and/or data representations, which location may optionally be informed by other inputs, data, and/or analyses, as well) and further prospecting for and/or producing hydrocarbons using the well”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 6, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200183047 A1 (“Denli”) in view of US 2021/0223427 (“Dorrington”).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 18, Denli does not teach but Dorrington teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more geological descriptions include measurements of the one or more geological formations obtained from respective tools of a drilling assembly, the measurements including density, porosity, and resistivity (Dorrington: para [0034], “Sensors (S), such as gauges, may be positioned about oilfield 100 to collect data relating to various field operations as described previously. As shown, sensor S is positioned in wireline tool 106.3 to measure downhole parameters which relate to, for example porosity, permeability, fluid composition and/or other parameters of the field operation”; para [0038], “While FIGS. 1B-1D illustrate tools used to measure properties of an oilfield…various measurement tools capable of sensing parameters, such as seismic two-way travel time, density, resistivity, production rate, etc., of the subterranean formation and/or its geological formations may be used”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Denli (directed to generating images based on measurements) and Dorrington (directed to density, porosity and resistivity) and arrived at generating images based on density, porosity and resistivity measurements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so “that the explorers may refer to databases of geological information about different areas, and compare the information to information gathered about a potential area for exploration” (Dorrington: para [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Denli teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising:
estimating the one or more geological descriptions of the one or more geological formations (Denli: para [0063], “the model is trained to generate realistic images from scratch, such as by inputting random noise), or conditioned or supervised (e.g., in addition to inputting random noise, the network is given “conditions” to encourage it to create realistic images that are also consistent with some structure, such as structural framework or seismic data or petrophysical data or log data)”);
generating respective images of the one or more geological formations based on the one or more geological descriptions (Denli: para [0063], “the model is trained to generate realistic images from scratch, such as by inputting random noise), or conditioned or supervised (e.g., in addition to inputting random noise, the network is given “conditions” to encourage it to create realistic images that are also consistent with some structure, such as structural framework or seismic data or petrophysical data or log data)”); and
updating the respective images as the geological descriptions are obtained while drilling the wellbore (Denli: para [0076], responsive to obtaining additional data responsive to reservoir development, an updated set of applicable conditioning data (e.g., second stage data) may be used in addition to the available prior conditioning data from exploration stage by the machine learning methodology in order to generate the geological models (e.g., a second plurality of reservoir models which is different from the first plurality of reservoir models or which are subset of the first plurality of reservoir models because not all of the first plurality models are consistent with the new conditioning data). The updated set of applicable conditioning data may include the additional data obtained during reservoir development phase. Further, the updated set of applicable geological concepts may reflect additional information obtained during development phase, potentially revising the values (or narrowing the ranges of reservoir models or reservoir values) or may comprise different types from the set of applicable geological concepts generated from exploration phase. In this way, responsive to additional information, the inputs to the machine learning methodology may iteratively generate geological models to comport with the latest conditioning data including new geophysical or petrophysical, reservoir framework or well data.”).
Denli does not teach but Dorrington teaches:
determining a well path of the wellbore to be formed in the Earth’s subsurface prior to drilling the wellbore (Dorrington: para [0029], “Typically, the wellbore is drilled according to a drilling plan that is established prior to drilling. The drilling plan typically sets forth equipment, pressures, trajectories and/or other parameters that define the drilling process for the wellsite. The drilling operation may then be performed according to the drilling plan”);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Denli (directed to generating images based on measurements) and Dorrington (directed to well path planning) and arrived at generating images based on well path planning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so “that the explorers may refer to databases of geological information about different areas, and compare the information to information gathered about a potential area for exploration” (Dorrington: para [0002]).
Claims 3, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200183047 A1 (“Denli”) in view of US 20200011158 A1 (“Xu”).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 19, Denli teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more geological descriptions include anomalies in the one or more geological formations, the anomalies including faults (Denli: para [0025], “FIG. 9 illustrates a first set of the interpreted surfaces, horizon and fault surfaces and automatically-generated reservoir model using the conditioned generative-adversarial networks trained with the SEAM Foothill geological data”).
Denli does not teach but Xu does teach:
wherein the one or more geological descriptions include anomalies in the one or more geological formations, the anomalies including fractures (Xu: para [0044], “the equipment 127 and/or 128 may include components, a system, systems, etc. for fracturing, seismic sensing, analysis of seismic data, assessment of one or more fractures… the equipment 127 and/or 128 may provide for measurement, collection, communication, storage, analysis, etc. of data”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Denli (directed to generating images based on measurements) and Xu (directed toward fractures) and arrived at generating images based on measurements based on faults and fractures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so “a user can interpret the geological characteristics of the subterranean environment. Knowledge of such characteristics can enable the user to take action to enhance the exploration and production results” (Xu: para [0002]).
Claims 4-5, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200183047 A1 (“Denli”) in view US 20170160421 A1 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 20, Denli does not teach but Zhang does teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the respective images of the one or more geological formations include realistic images depicting one or more geological features and anomalies, wherein the one or more geological features include color and texture (Zhang: claim 17, “The system of claim 10, wherein the processor identifies one or more rock types based on different vug filling materials visualized in the high-resolution image by different colors”; para [0026], “may provide photograph-realistic images of the formations intersected by the well using microelectrical sensors that operate in the megahertz (MHz) range… data obtained by the tool may be used to produce multi-dimensional high azimuthal and vertical resolution images of texture distribution…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Denli (directed to generating images based on measurements) and Zhang (directed to realistic images) and arrived at generating realistic images based on measurements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for identifying subsurface formation textures
and rock types included in the subsurface formation” (Zhang: para [0002]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Denli and Zhang teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the respective images are actual images of the one or more geological formations (Denli: para [0063], “the model is trained to generate realistic images from scratch, such as by inputting random noise), or conditioned or supervised (e.g., in addition to inputting random noise, the network is given “conditions” to encourage it to create realistic images that are also consistent with some structure, such as structural framework or seismic data or petrophysical data or log data)”) or images of a similar geological formations with similar geological features and anomalies.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights