CTNF 18/602,712 CTNF 78032 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 2-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-16 are directed to a method, claims 17-18 are directed to using a wind farm controller to perform the method, and claims 19-20 are directed to a wind farm controller. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Regarding claim 1: A method for automated well property prediction based upon a plurality of individual well reports, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processing resource, a plurality of well reports, wherein each of the plurality of well reports include pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT) data for a respective well at a respective time; automatically extracting, by the processing resource, PVT data from the plurality of well reports; automatically incorporating, by the processing resource, the extracted PVT data corresponding to the respective well into a plurality of tables for the respective well; automatically merging, by the processing resource, the plurality of tables into a PVT property profile for the respective well stored in a database, wherein the respective well is one of a plurality of wells, and wherein the database includes a respective PVT property profile for each of the plurality of wells; selecting a PVT property profile for a selected well from the database; and applying, by the processing resource, PVT data analysis to the PVT property profile for the selected well to yield a PVT property prediction. Step 2A Prong 1 : “obtaining, by a processing resource, a plurality of well reports, wherein each of the plurality of well reports include pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT) data for a respective well at a respective time” is directed to mental step of data gathering. “automatically extracting, by the processing resource, PVT data from the plurality of well reports” is directed mental step of analyzing data. “automatically incorporating, by the processing resource, the extracted PVT data corresponding to the respective well into a plurality of tables for the respective well” is directed mental step of analyzing data. “automatically merging, by the processing resource, the plurality of tables into a PVT property profile for the respective well stored in a database, wherein the respective well is one of a plurality of wells, and wherein the database includes a respective PVT property profile for each of the plurality of wells” is directed mental step of storing data because merging multiple tables into a unified property profile and placing into a database describes data integration, consolidation, and persistence. “selecting a PVT property profile for a selected well from the database” is directed to mental step of retrieving data. “applying, by the processing resource, PVT data analysis to the PVT property profile for the selected well to yield a PVT property prediction” is directed to math because processing resources use complex thermodynamic mathematical models to calculate and match phase behaviors. Algorithms use statistical and regression math derived from historical fluid data to estimate properties. Modern tools utilize AI algorithms such as Artificial Neural Networks to analyze data trends and rapidly predict key metrics like oil formation volume factor or gas-oil ratio. Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Further, the claim recites the step of “applying, by the processing resource, PVT data analysis to the PVT property profile for the selected well to yield a PVT property prediction” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii). Additional Elements: Step 2A Prong 2 : “ A method for automated well property prediction based upon a plurality of individual well reports” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “obtaining, by a processing resource, a plurality of well reports, wherein each of the plurality of well reports include pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT) data for a respective well at a respective time” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “automatically incorporating, by the processing resource, the extracted PVT data corresponding to the respective well into a plurality of tables for the respective well” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “automatically incorporating, by the processing resource, the extracted PVT data corresponding to the respective well into a plurality of tables for the respective well” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “automatically merging, by the processing resource, the plurality of tables into a PVT property profile for the respective well stored in a database, wherein the respective well is one of a plurality of wells, and wherein the database includes a respective PVT property profile for each of the plurality of wells” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “selecting a PVT property profile for a selected well from the database” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “applying, by the processing resource, PVT data analysis to the PVT property profile for the selected well to yield a PVT property prediction” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results. This is similar to electric power : MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A ., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application: An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Step 2B : “ A method for automated well property prediction based upon a plurality of individual well reports” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “obtaining, by a processing resource, a plurality of well reports, wherein each of the plurality of well reports include pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT) data for a respective well at a respective time” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “automatically incorporating, by the processing resource, the extracted PVT data corresponding to the respective well into a plurality of tables for the respective well” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “automatically incorporating, by the processing resource, the extracted PVT data corresponding to the respective well into a plurality of tables for the respective well” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “automatically merging, by the processing resource, the plurality of tables into a PVT property profile for the respective well stored in a database, wherein the respective well is one of a plurality of wells, and wherein the database includes a respective PVT property profile for each of the plurality of wells” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “selecting a PVT property profile for a selected well from the database” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “applying, by the processing resource, PVT data analysis to the PVT property profile for the selected well to yield a PVT property prediction” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 but recites using a system to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 9 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 9. Regarding claims 3 and 12, “wherein the OCR is based on a machine learning”. Claims 3 and 12 recite the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. a machine learning, to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the machine learning merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of the machine learning to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2. Regarding claims 4 and 14, “wherein the merging the plurality of tables comprises reassembling the extracted PVT data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Regarding claims 5 and 15, “wherein the merging the plurality of tables comprises filtering and sorting the extracted PVT data using based at least in part on a score” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Regarding claims 6, “generating, by the processing resource, a graphic representing the PVT property profile for the selected well, wherein generating the graphic comprises at least one of: graphically depicting a subset of the PVT property profile for the selected well, and graphically depicting a comparison of subset of the PVT property profile for the selected well with subsets of PVT property profiles one or more of the plurality of wells for detection of PVT property anomaly” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Regarding claims 7 and 17, “wherein the applying PVT data analysis comprises interpolation and extrapolation of the extracted PVT data along a pressure and a temperature axis” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Regarding claims 8 and 18, “wherein the PVT property prediction is used to determine at least one of: characterization of a well's fluid behavior under a bubble point; a differential and a flash liberation process where gas is separated from liquid sample; a relationship of the well to a surface volume; oil and gas formation volume factor; and a composition of the oil and gas extracted from the well” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Regarding claim 19, “wherein the well property prediction system comprises a processing resource and a computer readable medium coupled to the processing resource, and wherein the computer readable medium includes instructions, which when executed by the processing resource, cause the processing resource to: select the PVT property profile for the selected well from the database; and apply PVT data analysis to the PVT property profile for the selected well to yield a PVT property prediction” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Regarding claim 20, “wherein the processing resource is used by both the well property prediction system and the archive conversion system, and wherein the computer readable medium further includes instructions, which when executed by the processing resource, cause the processing resource to: obtain the plurality of well reports for the well; extract PVT data from the plurality of well reports; incorporate the extracted PVT data corresponding to the well into a plurality of tables for the well; and merge the plurality of tables into the PVT property profile for the well stored in the database” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Hence the claims 1, 2-11, and 13-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 12 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 to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Other Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Bello et al. (USP 10,280,722) disclose a method of online real-time estimation of production performance properties includes receiving real-time field data taken by downhole sensors, and estimating formation properties and production performance properties by applying the field data to a two or three-dimensional numerical transient thermal multiphase reservoir flow model, and automatically calibrating the model. Calibrating includes: selecting calibration parameters corresponding to values of selected model parameters, and applying the calibration parameters to the model to generate predicted properties that correlate with the selected model parameters, the predicted properties including flow rates and/or formation properties; automatically calculating a difference between the predicted properties and measured properties that correlate with the selected model parameters, and calculating an objective function value; performing an inversion that includes iteratively adjusting the selected model parameters until the objective function reaches a selected minimum value; and automatically updating the model by applying the selected model parameters associated with the minimum value. Calculation of the forward model includes performing a fluid property simulation using available information and assumptions. The fluid property simulation includes inputting PVT (pressure, volume and temperature) properties into a compositional simulator to predict thermodynamic and transport properties of fluids produced from a formation or reservoir. The thermodynamic and transport properties allow for prediction of fluid behavior from the reservoir along the borehole. Ghorayeb et al. (“Chain-based machine learning for full PVT data prediction”) disclose Building machine learning (ML) models based on pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) data is of paramount importance to capture trends and predict fluid behavior in a very heterogeneous and highly nonlinear thermodynamic system. PVT samples stored in an oil company database are often not complete and might be missing properties; both black oil and compositional. Before delving into building optimized fluid models, it is required to have a clean and structured PVT database complete with all the required properties. The proposed methodology consists of predicting properties in series, starting from a minimal set of data (black oil and compositional) and obtaining a complete set of data for all PVT samples. The order through which this is completed relies on benefiting from the existing data to predict missing data starting from the highest correlating data to the lowest. Clustering is used to categorize the fluid samples into families based on the collective behavior of their different features, and hence, improve the quality of the PVT samples' properties prediction using machine learning. Several options are tested where clustering is performed using black oil properties only, compositional properties, or a combined set of black oil and compositional properties and the clustering scenario leading to the least prediction error is adopted. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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). 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. /JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/602,712 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights