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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ of 07/09/24 and 07/23/25 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/02/24 are accepted.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, which is a process. Independent claim 10 is directed to a computer-implemented system, which is a machine. Independent claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media, which is a manufacture. All other claims depend on independent claims 1, 10, and 19. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
determining, by using a gas storage model, a gas storage status, the gas storage model correlating the surface data and the subterranean data within the field (This limitation recites abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes. A general determination of a simple model that correlates two variables, such as surface data and subterranean data, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. More complex mathematical models cannot be performed in the human mind, but they are defined by mathematical relationships, formulas/equations, and/or calculations. Paragraphs 0035 and 0045 disclose the use of specific algorithms recite abstract mathematical concepts.)
Independent claims 10 and 19 represent variations of claim 1 and recite similar abstract limitations.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depend on independent claims 1, 10, and 19; they also recite the independent claims’ abstract limitations, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claims 3 and 12
determining that the probe data is outside an operational range (Such a determination is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed by the human mind. It recites an abstract mental process.)
Claims 5 and 14
determining that the gas storage status is outside an operational range (Such a determination is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed by the human mind. It recites an abstract mental process.)
generating an action plan comprising one or more remediation operations (Creating an action plan is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed by the human mind. It recites an abstract mental process.)
Claims 7 and 16
determining consequences associated with the action plan (Such a determination is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed by the human mind. It recites an abstract mental process.)
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
receiving, by one or more processors from probes, probe data indicative of gas storage, the probe data being collected by probes included in operating wells and observation wells within a field, the probe data comprising surface data and subterranean data indicative of a health of a gas storage reservoir within the field (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because receiving probe data to be processed merely serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The solution is in the processing of the data; the collection of the data is ancillary. Also, the disclosure of “the probe data comprising surface data and subterranean data indicative of a health of a gas storage reservoir within the field,” merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
by the one or more processors (All instances of this phrase are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
providing, by the one or more processors, a gas storage assessment report comprising a pressure map reflecting the gas storage status within the field (This limitation merely serves to “output” the results of the abstract data processing. The general output of data processing results merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Tying the context of the data processing results to a general application, such as a gas storage assessment report, and/or a pressure map, merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
triggering, by the one or more processors, an operation affecting the gas storage within the field (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because the claims are not clear that the triggered operation is a structurally transformative operation, as opposed to a data processing operation, such as sending out a notification. Paragraph 0056 of the applicant’s original specification states, “The action plan includes an automatic selection of remedial actions that can be triggered to be automatically performed based on system configurations. Remedial actions include, among other things, notification to an end user …communication of the sensed vulnerability and risk to a field operator.” Merely transmitting data, in the form of a general display or notification, merely serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). If a structurally transformative operation, such as opening/closing valves of turning on/off a pump, is actually being done, it is suggested that such specific operations be positively and affirmatively recited.)
Independent claims 10 and 19 represent variations of claim 1 and recite similar limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The unique limitations belonging to claims 10 and 19 are generic recitations of different computer elements, such as a memory, server, non-transitory computer-readable media, etc … As discussed above, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depend on independent claims 1, 10, and 18; they also recite the independent claims’ limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 2, 11, and 20
wherein the probe data comprises wellhead data, downhole parameters, and micro-seismic data (This limitation merely gives general contextual information about the type of data that is received and processed. It merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
Claims 3 and 12
generating, by the one or more processors, an alert for transmission to one or more computing devices (Creating a general alert merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
Claims 4 and 13
wherein the gas storage status comprises sustainability, integrity, and safety of gas storage surface and subterranean assets (This limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
Claims 6 and 15
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the one or more remediation operations configured to adjust at least one configuration setting of at least one of one or more devices (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
Claims 8 and 17
updating, by the one or more processors, the gas storage model based on the consequences associated with the action plan (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
Claims 9 and 18
wherein the operation comprises a reservoir management operation, an injection strategy, or a re-production strategy (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyes et al NPL (Reyes, R; Machado, M.; Torre, M.; Sharma, J.; Gey, G., Koa, J.; Edwards, T. – “Digital Wellhead Integrated System for Production Management”; Paper was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 31 October – 3 November 2022.) in view of Cheng et al NPL (Cheng, Z; Wan, H.; Niu, H.; Qu, X.; Ding, X.; Peng, H.; and Zheng, Y. – “China Offshore Intelligent Oilfield Production Monitoring System: Design and Technical Path Forward for Implementation”; Paper was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2-5 October, 2023.).
With respect to claim 1, Reyes et al NPL discloses:
A computer-implemented method (page 1, abstract, second to last paragraph states, “Furthermore, this infrastructure at the wellsite enables ideas for new workflow implementation such as site monitoring via computer vision and more elaborate production and optimization workflows, creating a truly intelligent asset.”; page 8, bullet points 2-3 in the “Smart Flowback/Well Testing (North America) section discloses “flow computer.”)
receiving, by one or more processors from probes (figure 2; page 5, paragraph 1. states, “The DWIS provides a set of wireless or wired sensors, gas detectors, surveillance cameras, and smart actuators depending on the application required by the end user.” Sensors are broadly construed to serve as the claimed probes. Page 10, paragraph 4 of the “Chemical Injection/Flow Assurance (South America)” section states, “The system used a loop control processed by the edge device with all data collected from the VFM, from scale/corrosion models (provided by wireless probe) …”),
probe data indicative of gas storage (Page 7, first paragraph of the “Algorithms at the Edge: Gas Handling Automated System/Gas Interference” section states, “The device gathers well data information to feed the ROM that was created to monitor and control the gas annulus pressure that is accumulated due to the high gas-oil ratio (GOR).”),
the probe data being collected by probes included in operating wells and observation wells within a field (abstract states, “A digital wellhead integrated system (DWIS) provides information on wellhead parameters from smart instrumentation and achieves operational intelligence via edge computing … DWIS provides real-time monitoring, data collection, and management of well conditions … that can be used for future health maintenance activities thus mitigating the risk of unexpected events.”)
the probe data comprising surface data and subterranean data indicative of a health of a gas storage reservoir within the field (abstract; “surface data” is suggested by disclosure of wellhead. Page 10, first and third paragraphs of “Chemical Injection/Flow Assurance (South America)” section discloses “electric submersible pump (ESP) wells … These workflows are triggered based not only on the current data gathered from the corrosion and scale measurements but also from other elements such as … the variable speed drive ESP (including downhole parameters gathered by a PLC).” This suggests subterranean data.)
determining, by the one or more processors, by using a gas storage model, a gas storage status, the gas storage model correlating the surface data and the subterranean data within the field (abstract; page 6, third paragraph of “Advanced Algorithms in DWIS” section state, “Advanced algorithms of different formats, either machine-learning models or artificial intelligence logic-based solutions, will become the first line of action and provide valuable insights and support to real-time control over critical processes and operations …” Page 7, first paragraph of “Algorithms at the Edge: Gas Handling Automated System/Gas Interference” section states, “The device gathers well data information to feed the ROM that was created to monitor and control the gas annulus pressure that is accumulated due to the high gas-oil ratio (GOR). The system integrates a target pressure in two different modes and releases the gas based on the model created in a way that maintains the integrity of the well.”)
providing, by the one or more processors, a gas storage assessment report reflecting the gas storage status within the field (page 9, last sentence states, “an export report feature that can be e-mailed to a distribution list on a defined schedule ...”); and
triggering, by the one or more processors, an operation affecting the gas storage within the field (The claim does not define what the triggered operation is. Page 9, last sentence states, “an export report feature that can be e-mailed to a distribution list on a defined schedule …” The examiner interprets emailing to be a triggered operation that satisfies the claimed limitation.)
With respect to claim 1, Reyes et al NPL differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
comprising a pressure map
With respect to claim 1, Cheng et al NPL discloses:
comprising a pressure map (obvious in view of combination; figure 10 or Cheng et al NPL shows visualization of results in different formats, including a map. Reyes et al NPL discloses displaying results in real time in a visualization interface (page 5, last sentence of process step 9. What Reyes et al NPL lacks is clear teaching that the display of results can include a map. Cheng et al NPL teaches this.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Cheng et al NPL into the invention of Reyes et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of including mapping as a way of displaying data.
Independent claims 10 and 19 represent computer-implemented system and non-transitory computer-readable media variations of computer-implemented method claim 1. They are rejected for similar reasons as those given above.
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the gas storage status comprises sustainability, integrity, and safety of gas storage surface and subterranean assets (Reyes abstract discloses “Managing well integrity …” and “reducing the carbon footprint …”; page 5, step 4. States, “The live data interactions can provide a quick response in case of any issue with the asset, better performance, and safety.”)
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the gas storage status is outside an operational range (obvious in view of combination; As discussed above, Reyes et al NPL discloses real-time monitoring to mitigate risk and to improve operational performance and future health maintenance. Determining parameters outside an operational range is obvious to the total disclosure of Reyes et al NPL.)
generating, by the one or more processors, an action plan comprising one or more remediation operations (Reyes et al NPL page 9, first bullet point after figure 4 states, “Identification and remediation of choke obstructions.” Reyes et al NPL abstract states, “This solution improves the response time between production data and field actions … DWIS provides real-time monitoring, data collection, and management of well conditions … while providing consistent information that can be used for future health maintenance activities thus mitigating the risk of unexpected events.” Forming an action plan is obvious to this disclosure.)
With respect to claims 6 and 15, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the one or more remediation operations configured to adjust at least one configuration setting of at least one of one or more devices (obvious in view of combination; Reyes et al NPL page 6, lines 2-3 discloses, “A smart alerting system allows notifying users by several transmission mechanisms (SMS, email, pagers, and others).”)
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
determining, by the one or more processors, consequences associated with the action plan (Reyes et al NPL abstract states, “Cost efficient remote monitoring and control of well activities prolongs the life of the well and promotes savings.” This is one example of a potential consequence associated with a determined action plan. Also, determining consequences is obvious, in view of real-time monitoring, as a user can witness consequences in real-time.)
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
updating, by the one or more processors, the gas storage model based on the consequences associated with the action plan (obvious in view of combination; Reyes et al NPL page 10, fourth paragraph of “Chemical Injection/Flow Assurance (South America)” section states, “A virtual flow model (VFM) had to be developed to ingest collected data to predict several scenarios based on changes in produced fluid rates, pressure, and temperature, among other data.” Updating the model is obvious in view of the real-time teachings or Reyes that accounts for various changes.)
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the operation comprises a reservoir management operation, an injection strategy, or a re-production strategy (Reyes et al NPL page 10, second paragraph of “Chemical Injection/Flow Assurance (South America)” section states, “The DWIS enabled the option to monitor the corrosion and scale measurements to control the well operation within the same unified platform. In addition, the DWIS was a fundamental portion of the solution because it integrated the flow of communications and live data to run some specific workflows and algorithms that performed control of the injection …”)
Claim(s) 2-3, 11-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyes et al NPL (Reyes, R; Machado, M.; Torre, M.; Sharma, J.; Gey, G., Koa, J.; Edwards, T. – “Digital Wellhead Integrated System for Production Management”; Paper was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 31 October – 3 November 2022.) in view of Cheng et al NPL (Cheng, Z; Wan, H.; Niu, H.; Qu, X.; Ding, X.; Peng, H.; and Zheng, Y. – “China Offshore Intelligent Oilfield Production Monitoring System: Design and Technical Path Forward for Implementation”; Paper was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2-5 October, 2023.), as applied to claims 1, 4-10, and 13-19 above, and further in view of AlSinan et al (US PgPub 20230097859).
With respect to claims 2, 11, and 20, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
The computer-implemented system of claim 10 (as applied to claim 10 above)
The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19 (as applied to claim 19 above)
wherein the probe data comprises wellhead data and downhole parameters (as discussed above)
With respect to claims 2, 11, and 20, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the probe data comprises micro-seismic data
With respect to claims 2, 11, and 20, AlSinan et al discloses:
wherein the probe data comprises micro-seismic data (paragraph 0001 states, “fractures may be formed over geological time as a result of movements and deformations within the subsurface rock, and continue to form as a result of microseismic events.”)
With respect to claims 2, 11, and 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of AlSinan et al into the invention of modified Reyes et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of tracking and evaluating fracture events for a well environment.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Reyes et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the probe data is outside an operational range (obvious, in view of the real-time monitoring operations of Reyes et al NPL; Reyes discloses providing consistent information that can be used to mitigate risk (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize determination of probe data, that is outside an operational range, as being indicative of the type of information that is being monitored by Reyes’ comprehensive system. Please also note page 14, paragraph 1 of the “Conclusions” section, which states, “Through applications in remote locations and difficult access areas, the DWIS has been demonstrated to reduce operational and environmental risk … to fix undesirable operating conditions.” Undesirable operating conditions can also be broadly construed to be outside an operational range.)
generating, by the one or more processors, an alert for transmission to one or more computing devices (Reyes et al page 6, line 2 discloses a “smart alerting system.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hori et al (US PgPub 20220120928) discloses ultrasonic pulse-echo and caliper formation characterization.
Anifowose et al (US PgPub 20210348495) discloses real-time estimation of reservoir porosity from mud gas data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 06/13/26
Prosecution Insights