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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
.Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the limitations "determining a density of the second set of production information by generating a kernel density heat map from the second set of production information" and "identifying missing values to impute in the first set of production information by generating a decline profile for the second set of production information based on the interpolated map residual and the kernel density heat map" can be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. The limitation of determining a density of the second set of production information by generating a kernel density heat map from the second set of production information is the use of computer to sort the data acquired and display it is analogous to a person determines how many more of item there is than another. This can easily be interpreted as the second or third example of performing a mental process with the use of a computer or in a computer environment. The same is concluded for the limitation “identifying missing values to impute in the first set of production information by generating a decline profile for the second set of production information based on the interpolated map residual and the kernel density heat map.” The amendment of “reallocating reported volumes between gas and liquids by transferring a portion of a reported gas stream volume to liquids in an amount determined from an imputed liquids percentage to produce corrected and reallocated production information,” further adds to the abstract idea in the form of mathematical concept and/or a mental process. This is the conclusion of Prong one.
The applicant further discloses that the claim does not fail the “Prong Two analysis.” The examiner again respectfully disagrees. The claim fails to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Organization and manipulation of information through mathematical correlation by means of a computer is not considered a practical application. It is deemed by MPEP 2106.04 as an Abstract Idea.
For reference, the examiner has copied the argument of the last office action.
The applicant argues that the claim recites specific processes directed to forecasting future oil or gas production of a plurality of wells and that the process is indeed an improvement to the technological field. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim amendments, as written, of “generating a interpolated map…..; determining a density……; and identifying missing values…density heat map” are defined by the MPEP as insignificant extra-solution activity and a mental process and/or mathematical concept and do not integrate the claim as a whole into a practical application. “Forecasting, by the computing system, future oil or gas production of the plurality of wells based on the corrected first set of production information and the second set of production information” is recited with a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the mind (See MPEP 2406.04 (III)(A)). The applicant also claims that the process is an improvement to the technical field. The examiner, again, respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to direct the applicant to MPEP 2105(a)(II) where the following paragraph is disclosed:
Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Based on the claim language, the applicant does not improve technology, rather merely gathers and analyzes information using conventional techniques and displays the results (Example iii, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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, 5-8, 12-15 and 19-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a set of production information for a plurality of plays from a region, the set of production information directed to past production of a plurality of wells; identifying, by the computing system, a first set of production information corresponding to a first plurality of wells that requires correction, wherein each well of the first plurality of wells comprises at least one day of production information that is misreported, including one or more days in which liquids were reported as zero while gas was reported; identifying, by the computing system, a second set of production information corresponding to a second plurality of wells that does not require correction; correcting, by the computing system, the first set of production information for the first plurality of wells by imputing missing values in the first set of production information using the second set of production information for the second plurality of wells, the correcting comprising: generating an interpolated map residual from the second set of production information, determining a density of the second set of production information by generating a kernel density heat map from the second set of production information, and identifying missing values to impute in the first set of production information by generating a decline profile for the second set of production information based on the interpolated map residual and the kernel density heat map; and reallocating reported volumes between gas and liquids by transferring a portion of a reported gas stream volume to liquids in an amount determined from an imputed liquids percentage to produce corrected and reallocated production information; forecasting, by the computing system, future oil or gas production of the plurality of wells based on the corrected first set of production information and the second set of production information; and delivering, by the computing system, the forecasted future oil or gas production of the plurality of wells to a remote computing device for display.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps “identifying, by the computing system, a first set of production information corresponding to a first plurality of wells that requires correction, wherein each well of the first plurality of wells comprises at least one day of production information that misreported; identifying, by the computing system, a second set of production information corresponding to a second plurality of wells that does not require correction” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping, while the steps of “determining a density of the second set of production information by generating a kernel density heat map from the second set of production information, and identifying missing values to impute in the first set of production information by generating a decline profile for the second set of production information based on the interpolated map residual and the kernel density heat map; correcting, by the computing system, the first set of production information for the first plurality of wells by imputing missing values in the first set of production information using the second set of production information for the second plurality of wells; forecasting, by the computing system, future oil or gas production of the plurality of wells based on the corrected first set of production information and the second set of production information; reallocating reported volumes between gas and liquids by transferring a portion of a reported gas stream volume to liquids in an amount determined from an imputed liquids percentage to produce corrected and reallocated production information” are treated by the Examiner as either or a combination of mathematical concept grouping and mental processing.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a computer system;
In Claim 8: a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor, computing system;
In Claim 15: a system, processor, memory, computing device.
The additional element in the preamble of “a system, memory, computing device, processor (generic processor)” are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines. The limitations reciting: “generating an interpolated map residual from the second set of production information; delivering, by the computing system, the forecasted future oil or gas production of the plurality of wells to a remote computing device for display” are considered mere data outputting (insignificant extra-solution activity).
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Regarding the limitations “receiving, by a computing system, a set of production information for a plurality of plays from a region, the set of production information directed to past production of a plurality of wells; and delivering, by the computing system, the forecasted future oil or gas production of the plurality of wells to a remote computing device for display,” MPEP 2106.05(g) regards this limitation as insignificant extra-solution activity (more specifically, mere data gathering/outputting).
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 5-8, 12-15 and 19-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be
considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2863