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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 4-5 the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant argues that claim 1 is patent-eligible because it allegedly:
recites a method with seven steps involving physical operations;
does not merely involve mathematical formulas or calculations;
requires specific equipment and practical actions;
yields a physically significant result; and
improves well-testing techniques by avoiding shut-in of the well.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 1, as presently drafted, is directed to determining the productivity of a coalbed methane well by obtaining data, performing pressure testing, calculating relationships among formation pressure and bottomhole flow pressure, and deriving a productivity result. In substance, the claim recites the mathematical analysis of well data to determine a productivity parameter.
This type of activity falls within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. Even where the claim is applied to a particular field such as coalbed methane production, the focus remains on using data and calculations to determine a result. The mere recitation that the calculated quantity has physical meaning does not remove the claim from the abstract-idea category.
Applicant’s assertion that the claimed process is not “merely” a mathematical concept is not sufficient to overcome the rejection. A claim is not patent eligible simply because the mathematical analysis is tied to a real-world environment or physical quantity. The relevant inquiry is whether the claim, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. Here, the core of the claim remains the determination of productivity through data acquisition and mathematical processing.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The Claim Does Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Applicant contends that steps 1, 3, and 7 involve practical actions and thus integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the recited steps do not provide a meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Obtaining basic data
The step of obtaining basic data is merely data gathering. Data collection, by itself, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and does not confer patent eligibility. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to sensors, tools, measurement devices, or data acquisition techniques.
Step 3: Stabilized bottomhole flow pressure test
Although applicant characterizes this step as a practical operation, the claim does not recite a particular technological improvement to the test itself. The step merely instructs performing pressure testing under certain production conditions. This is an application of the abstract idea to a field of use, not an integration into a practical application that improves the functioning of a machine, system, or technology.
Step 7: Obtaining productivity under corresponding pressure conditions
The final step of obtaining productivity is the intended result of the mathematical analysis. Reciting the output of the calculation does not transform the claim into a practical application. This step is best understood as the post-solution activity of reporting the result of the abstract analysis.
Accordingly, the claim does not impose any meaningful limit on the abstract idea beyond its use in a well-production context. The claim does not recite a technological improvement to coalbed methane wells, a new testing instrument, a novel control system, or any other concrete modification to existing technology.
Applicant’s Alleged “Physical Significance” Is Not Sufficient
Applicant argues that the claimed productivity value has physical significance and therefore the claim cannot be abstract. However, the fact that a calculated number corresponds to a real-world property does not render the claim patent eligible. Many abstract mathematical methods are used to determine physical parameters, but that alone does not make them patent-eligible subject matter.
The claim is directed to determining a numerical productivity value from measured conditions. The presence of a practical end result does not change the character of the claim where the underlying advance is the mathematical determination itself.
Applicant’s Alleged Improvement to the Technical Field Is Not Recited in the Claims
Applicant further asserts that the invention overcomes deficiencies of conventional shut-in well testing and fills a gap in the art. However, any purported improvement must be recited in the claim and not merely described in the specification or argued in the remarks.
The present claim does not recite a specific technical solution that improves well testing technology itself. Rather, it broadly claims a method of determining productivity using data acquisition and calculations. The claim does not require any nonconventional arrangement of equipment, any specialized algorithm tied to a specific machine, or any improvement in the functioning of the well or testing apparatus.
A statement that the claimed method is useful in practice does not establish patent eligibility where the claim is still directed to an abstract idea implemented with generic or conventional steps.
No Inventive Concept / No Significantly More
Even if the claim were considered to include additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The recited steps of obtaining data, conducting tests, and determining productivity are generic and conventional activities in the field of well analysis.
The claim merely applies the abstract idea in the context of coalbed methane wells and does not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. Applicant filed an amended specification on April 24, 2026, however it appears to be a shorter version of claim 1 without the formulas. As cited before, the abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover Mathematical Concepts. Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a productivity of a coalbed methane well without shutting down the well, comprising steps of:
step 1: obtaining basic data of a target coalbed methane well, comprising coalbed methane PVT experimental data, an original formation pressure PRi, a bottomhole flow pressure Pwf of the coalbed methane well during production, and a daily production rate qsc;
step 2: based on the coalbed methane PVT experimental data obtained in the step 1, determining a relationship table between a pressure P and a coalbed methane deviation factor Z, and further determining a relationship table between the pressure P and a pseudo-pressure Ps, wherein Ps= P/Z;
step 3: performing stabilized bottomhole flow pressure test under constant production conditions in no less than three production stages of the coalbed methane well, and recording daily gas production rates qsc(1), qsc(2),…,qsc(n), bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(1), Pwf(2),…,Pwf(n) , and cumulative gas productions GP(1), GP(2), ..., GP(n) of the coalbed methane well at each stabilized flow pressure test moment;
step 4: setting an initial iterative assumption value GO of a gas well dynamic reserve, combining the cumulative gas productions GP(1), GP(2), ..., GP(n) at each stabilized flow pressure test moment in different production stages, and determining formation pressures PRm(1), PRm(2),…PRm(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment based on a material balance equation;
step 5: according to the formation pressures PRm(1), PRm(2),…PRm(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment determined based on the material balance equation, the bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(1), Pwf(2),…,Pwf(n) and the production rates qs(1), qsc(2),…qsc(n), determining coefficients A and B in a binomial deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well: P2R - Pwf2=Aqsc+Bq2sc, wherein PR is the formation pressure, Pwf is the bottomhole flow pressure of the coalbed methane well, and qsc is the daily production rate of the coalbed methane well;
step 6: based on the binomial deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well P2R - Pwf2=Aqsc+Bq2sc determined in the step 5, combining the bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(l), Pwf(2),..., Pwf(n) and the production rates qsc(1), qsc(2),…qsc(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment obtained in the step 3, and adopting PR=
Pw
f
2
+ Aq
sc
+ Bq
2
sc
to determine formation pressures PRp(1), PRp(2),…, PRp(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment, which means obtaining the formation pressures PRp(1), PRp(2),…, PRp(n) based on the binomial deliverability equation; and
step 7: performing an error test between the formation pressures PRm(1),PRm(2),… PRm(n) based on the material balance equation and the formation pressures PRp(1), PRp(2),..., PRp(n) based on the binomial deliverability equation corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment; if an error between the formation pressures obtained by different methods fails to meet a preset accuracy requirement, then repeating the steps 4-6 to iterate until the preset accuracy requirement is satisfied, wherein the binomial deliverability equation obtained when the preset accuracy requirement is met is a deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well; substituting the formation pressures and the bottomhole flow pressures into the deliverability equation of the coalbed methane well for solving, thereby obtaining the productivity of the coalbed methane well under corresponding formation pressure and bottomhole flow pressure conditions.
Examiner notes there are no computer components recited in the claims or specification. The italicized functions, when considered as a whole, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, and therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. For instance, steps 1-7 as seen above all involve mathematical calculations or formulations. Additionally, explicit formulae are recited in independent claim 1, and therefore the independent claim is overwhelmingly directed to determining a productivity of a coalbed methane well without shutting down a well which falls under “mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 2-3 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claim 1, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A- Prong 1 analysis.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein in the step 4, the formation pressures corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment are determined as follows:
determining formation pseudo-pressures PRs(1), PRs(2),…, PRs(n) corresponding to each stabilized flow pressure test moment based on a pseudo-pressure material balance equation, and then adopting interpolation or function fitting to calculate the corresponding formation pressures PRm(1), PRm(2),…, PRm(n) based on the relationship table between the pressure P and the pseudo-pressure Ps.
The above dependent claim 2 recites mathematical calculations, and therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts.”
Claim 3 recites:
wherein in the step 5, the coefficients A and B in the binomial deliverability equation for the coalbed methane well are determined by:
making y(i) =
P
2
R
(
i
)
-
P
2
w
f
(
i
)
q
s
c
(
i
)
, x(i) = qsc(i), i = 1,2, ..., n; according to the gas production rates qsc(1), qsc(2),…,gsc(n) of the coalbed methane well at each stabilized flow pressure test moment in different production stages and corresponding bottomhole flow pressures Pwf(1), Pwf(2),…, Pwf(n) , obtaining a series of observation points (y(i), x(i));
processing observation point data with linear fit, so that A is equal to an intercept of a linear equation obtained from the linear fit, and B is equal to a slope of the linear equation obtained from the linear fit.
The above dependent claim 3 recites mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations, and therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts.”
Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract
Step 2A- Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. Claims 1-3 do not recite any computer components. Even if computer hardware was being cited, it would amount to:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d))
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 2-3 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above claims 1-3 do not recite any computer hardware or additional elements per se.
Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.
Thus, when considered as a whole and in combination, claims 1-3 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes at this time, there is no prior art rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights