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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 9 and product Claim 15. Claim 1 recites the limitations of determining an optimized sampling sequence that maximizes a number of zones to be sampled during a sampling operation of a plurality of zones within a wellbore, the wellbore formed in one or more subsurface formations.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind, evaluation. Determining an optimized sampling sequence that maximizes a number of zones to be sampled during a sampling operation recites a mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concepts performed in the human mind, evaluation, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The logging tool and one or more processors in Claim 9 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. It is noted that the one or more processors of Claim 15 are recited within the preamble and not the body of the claim. There is no hardware recited within Claim 1. Claims 9 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite logging tool and one or more processors in Claim 9. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0017, 0099-0102] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 9, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 10, and 16 further detail selecting the optimized sampling sequence; Claims 3, 4, 11, and 17 further include the use of one or more processors to determine a plurality of properties of one or more bubbles within the wellbore and a wellbore attribute and operational attribute based on the one or more bubbles without adding significantly more; Claims 5, 6, 12, and 18 further detail using one or more processors to determine number of zones to be sampled, an optimum fluid influx, and the optimized sampling sequence without adding significantly more; and Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 direct an operation to modify the sampling operation based at least in part on the optimized sampling sequence. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A-D and N have been cited on PTO-892 for illustrating the state of the art at the time of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
8/28/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
