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 .
Cross-Reference to Related Applications
This application is a continuation-in-part of 17/512,135 filed on Oct. 27, 2021.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-14 and 17-20 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1, 4, 13 and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 2-3 and 15-16 have been canceled.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019). Examiner further recommends the Applicant to set up an interview to discuss the amendments.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the prior Claim Objections.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite abstract ideas, Examiner respectfully disagrees and further maintains that the claim language recites abstract ideas. The amended language merely and generically states a transmitting of instructions to computing devices which has not been found by the courts to integrate abstract ideas into practical applications.
Furthermore, regarding Prong Two, Examiner finds that the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because it is merely and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
Applicant further asserts that the autonomous control amounts to significantly more, however, the claim language states that instructions are to be transmitted. The autonomous control of the hardware is further not positively recited, thus no actual implementation within the claim language of the hardware performing the functions autonomously. In addition, this further emphasizes that the elements within the claim language are still generic performing their generic functions. Examiner reminds Applicant, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
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.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites generating, using a seismic source, prospect inputs for a plurality of prospects, each prospect input having fixed inputs and dynamic inputs; storing the prospect inputs; generating, correlation matrices based on the dynamic inputs, wherein the correlation matrices include a distance matrix that correlates a distance relationship between each pair of prospects of the plurality of prospects with a correlation factor calculated based on a cost of moving rigs between each pair of prospects; determining, a set of drilling sequences for the plurality of prospects based on a budget; modeling, by Monte Carlo simulation, each drilling sequence of the set of drilling sequences within the prospect inputs, wherein each iteration of modeling is complete when exploration constraints are reached; generating, an optimal drilling sequence, including a risk and a reward for the optimal drilling sequence; translating, the optimal drilling sequence for use in drilling prospects by rig-up implementation hardware and transmitting, a translated optimal drilling sequence to the rig-up implementation hardware, wherein one or more components of the rig-up implementation hardware are autonomously operated without human intervention to enable the drilling of oil or gas from the plurality of prospects.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical relationships/calculations taking place.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 4-12 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a seismic detector, prospect model data memory, prospect simulator module and a prospect simulator translation module. The seismic detector, prospect model data memory, prospect simulator module and a prospect simulator translation module are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include seismic detector, prospect model data memory, prospect simulator module, a prospect simulator translation module and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0071-0076. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 1 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…at least 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; Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")).
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 13-14 and 17-20, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 13-14 and 17-20 are directed to the abstract idea of optimization of prospect portfolios for gas/oil exploration.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 13, claim 13 recites a seismic source that generates prospect inputs for a plurality of prospects, each prospect input having fixed inputs and dynamic inputs; receives and stores the prospect inputs; receives the prospect inputs from the prospect model data memory; generates correlation matrices based on the dynamic inputs, wherein the correlation matrices include a distance matrix that correlates a distance relationship between each pair of prospects of the plurality of prospects with a correlation factor calculated based on a cost of moving rigs between each pair of prospects; determines a set of drilling sequences for the plurality of prospects based on a budget; models, by Monte Carlo simulation, each drilling sequence of the set of drilling sequences within the prospect inputs, wherein each iteration of modeling is complete when the exploration constraints are reached; and generates an optimal drilling sequence, including a risk and a reward for the optimal drilling sequence; and translates the optimal drilling sequence for use in drilling prospects by rig-up implementation hardware, transmits a translated optimal drilling sequence to the rig-up implementation hardware such that one or more components of the rig-up implementation hardware are autonomously operated without human intervention to enable the drilling of oil or gas from the plurality of prospects.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical relationships/calculations taking place.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 14 and 17-20 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a seismic detector, prospect model data memory, a prospect simulator module, and prospect simulator translation module. The seismic detector, prospect model data memory, a prospect simulator module, and prospect simulator translation module are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include seismic detector, prospect model data memory, a prospect simulator module, prospect simulator translation module and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0071-0076. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 13 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…at least 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; Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")).
Therefore, Claim 13 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625 /BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625