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 .
Claims 1 – 27 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
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 – 13, 15 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a process for determining rock permeability by scanning, calculating pore size distribution, and optimizing the selected distribution using inversion of MICP data.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1 – 27 are directed toward a process (method). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1- 13, 15 – 26 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 19 and 20 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of Business/ Scientific Data Processing.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9 and 20, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A process for determining rock permeability comprising:
acquiring a rock sample from a subterranean formation;
determining a volume-based aspect ratio distribution of pores in the rock sample from a digital image of the rock sample;
grouping the volume-based aspect ratio distribution into two or more pore types;
selecting an initial pore type from the two or more pore types;
obtaining mercury injection capillary pressure data of the rock sample;
creating a volume forward model using the mercury injection capillary pressure data;
deriving an initial volume-based pore size distribution for the initial pore type using the volume forward model; creating a frequency forward model using the mercury injection capillary pressure data;
deriving an initial frequency-based pore size distribution for the initial pore type using the frequency forward model;
selecting either the initial volume-based pore size distribution or the initial frequency-based pore size distribution based on the volume forward model and the frequency forward model to provide a selected distribution;
and optimizing the selected distribution using an inversion of the mercury injection capillary pressure data with combinations of two or more pore type distributions to create an optimized distribution.
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk (in mining and geotechnical engineering))).
Dependent claims 2 – 13, and 16 – 26 provide further details to the abstract idea of claim 1 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 1.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1 – 13, 15 – 26 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “digital image,” “volume-based aspect ratio distribution,” “MICP,” and “frequency forward model.” However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2 – 13 and 16 – 26 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1 – 13, 16 – 26 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “digital image,” “volume-based aspect ratio distribution,” “MICP,” and “frequency forward model.” However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2 – 13, 16 – 26 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 15 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 15; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1 – 13, 15 – 26 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1 – 13, 15 – 26 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 11, 13 – 17, 24, 26 – 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theologou et al. (US 2016/0124115).
Regarding Claim 1:
Theologou et al. teaches a process for determining rock permeability, comprising: acquiring a rock sample from a subterranean formation (via 10002, paragraph 0024); determining a volume-based aspect ratio distribution of pores in the rock sample from a digital image of the rock sample (via 10004, paragraph 0025); grouping the volume-based aspect ratio distribution into two or more pore types (via 50, paragraph 0021 describes classifying); selecting an initial pore type from the two or more pore types (via 1008); obtaining mercury injection capillary pressure data of the rock sample (via 1008, see also paragraph 0027); creating a volume forward model using the mercury injection capillary pressure data (paragraphs 0028 – 0031, the calculations derived from MICP); deriving an initial volume-based pore size distribution for the initial pore type using the volume forward model (Figs 11 – 13 show the extracted data of the pore size); creating a frequency forward model using the mercury injection capillary pressure data (Fig 13, via PNM, see paragraphs 0043 – 0044); deriving an initial frequency-based pore size distribution for the initial pore type using the frequency forward model (Figs 11 – 13, via 1010); selecting either the initial volume-based pore size distribution (Fig 8) or the initial frequency-based pore size distribution based on the volume forward model and the frequency forward model to provide a selected distribution; and optimizing the selected distribution using an inversion of the mercury injection capillary pressure data with combinations of two or more pore type distributions to create an optimized distribution (Fig 8, paragraphs 0041, 0047, 0053 – 0056).
Regarding Claim 2:
Theologou et al. teaches the digital image of the rock sample is a scanning electron microscope image (paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 3:
Theologou et al. teaches the mercury injection capillary pressure data comprises a surface tension and a contact angle (paragraph 0012).
Regarding Claim 4:
Theologou et al. teaches grouping the volume-based aspect ratio distribution into two or more pore types is based on calculating an average ratio of a short axis diameter over a long axis diameter (α) for each pore type (paragraphs 0049 – 0052).
Regarding Claim 11:
Theologou et al. teaches optimizing the selected distribution using the inversion of the mercury injection capillary pressure data includes a least-square optimization method (paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 13:
Theologou et al. teaches the volume-based pore size distribution is simulated by one or more probability density distribution types selected from gaussian, triangular, uniform, and beta (paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 14:
Theologou et al. teaches modifying one or more drilling operations based at least in part on the optimized distribution, updating a reservoir matrix with the optimized distribution, updating a reservoir model to improve reservoir history matching and/or production planning, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0067).
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 16:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 17:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 24:
See rejection of Claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 26:
See rejection of Claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 27:
See rejection of Claim 14 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 10, 12, 18 – 23, 25 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights