DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 01/29/2026 have been entered.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails 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.
Claim 1 recites a method of optimizing drilling operations (process),
Claim 8 recites a system (machine or manufacture), and claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium (a manufacture). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, Examiner’s evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite abstract limitations including “ receiving, …, a plurality of operating parameters based on information from one or more sensors during drilling of the wellbore”, “receiving,..., a selection of one or more factors for optimizing drilling operations”, “generating, …, a report including one or more instruction…”,” receiving, …, the report including the one or more instructions…”, “generating a plurality of reports…”, “logging information associated with each iteration of the report…” “merging the logged information…”.
These limitations, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process. More specifically, other than reciting “a processor” , “a computer system”, nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. There mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claimed directed toward a mental process include claims to “collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis,’ wherein the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstrom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 199 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)’. Additionally, the recitation of the specific variables and data limitations are insufficient as “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in Section | of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of a(n) “a drilling rig”, “one or more processors”, “a wellbore”, “a computer system”, “a drilling rig controller”, “a processor”, “” These elements are cited at a high level of generality, and, as applied, merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claim.
The processor of the computer system is recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 1,8, and 15 recite the additional elements of “implementing, by the drilling rig controller, the one or more instructions as modified by the first operator, or the instructions as originally generated” and “outputting to an user interface before the drilling”. These steps are cited at a high level of generality, and, as applied, merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Note: In order to overcome the 101 rejection, the Examiner suggests adding a limitation similar to “drilling the wellbore using the instructions of the report…”. It also important to make sure that there is support for the limitation in the original disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
03/19/2026