DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 12/18/2025, Applicant, on 1/16/2026, amended Claims 1 and 14, Canceled Claim 13, and added Claim 21. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending in this action, with Claims 8-12 being withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 14-21 have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts that the claims as a whole are not directed towards an abstract idea by stating the amended limitations of the claims and that a human can’t be performed in the human mind because it utilizes machine learning, and cites Examples 37 to 42. Examiner disagrees as first these examples has nothing to do with the case at hand, as the fact patterns are different in the case vs examples, and the limitations of the current invention are not necessarily rooted in computer technology, but rather utilize current technologies such as a report manager and prompt generator, etc. , to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. Regardless this would not change the fact there are two identified abstract ideas, as per the rejection below. The claims recite limitation which describe abstract processes of both a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, as the claims recite limitations for the purposes of generating a drilling report, which is inherently a fundamental economic process.
Applicant asserts the claims are integrated into a practical application by reciting the amended limitations of the claims and stating they impose meaningful limitations by using the machine learning, and that these are direct at improvements in the functioning of the machine learning itself. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies such as machine learning to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to a technology, any technological process, or the machine learning itself as any inventive concept as well as the amendments would be contained wholly within the abstraction, nor is there an improvement to any additional element, as per Applicant’s Specification shown in the rejection below, nor is there any controlling of another system as a report is generated for decision-making, or any improvement to any other additional element within the claim alone or in combination. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system.
Applicant asserts the claims are significantly more, by stating the amended limitations of the claims and that there are specific technological improvements, as a prompt generator is utilized and that the prompt generator is a machine learning model. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not significantly more, as again the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for “generating a drilling report”. There is no improvement to the system, processor, medium, manager, generator, or any other additional element, as per Applicant’s Specification shown in the rejection below, nor is there any controlling of another system as a report is generated for decision-making, or any improvement to any other additional element within the claim alone or in combination. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system, a server with a database.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – The rejection is hereby removed for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-7 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitations for receiving a query to generate the drilling report, the query including a time period, a drilling activity, and a persona, the persona including a frame of reference for the drilling report (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), inputting the query and identifying an activity code associated with a set of operator reports based on the drilling activity, wherein the prompt generator includes a first machine learning model (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating a primary source identifier and one or more secondary source identifiers, wherein the primary source identifier is based on a first association by the primary source identifier with the activity code and the one or more secondary source identifiers are based on a second association by the one or more secondary source identifiers with the activity code (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating a prompt for a drilling report model, the prompt including the time period, the persona, the primary source identifier, and the one or more secondary source identifiers (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), inputting the prompt to the drilling report model, the drilling report model generating the drilling report, wherein the drilling report model includes a second machine learning model, and wherein the drilling report model generates the drilling report based on a primary source selected based on the primary source identifier and one or more secondary sources, selected based on the one or more secondary source identifiers, the primary source and the one or more secondary sources including subject matter associated with the persona (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating an annotated drilling report based on annotating the drilling report with an annotation based on the primary source, the one or more secondary sources, and the persona (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), using the annotated drilling report, training the drilling report model to generate a new drilling report based on associations between the annotation and the primary source and the one or more secondary sources and the persona (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and providing the drilling report to a user (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. generating reports for a business; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of generating reports for a mining business, a Fundamental Economic Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a drilling report generation system, a processor, report manager, prompt generator, and a medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of reporting on mining operations. For example, generating a prompt for a drilling report encompasses a person, manager, floor manager, supervisor, etc. who uses a time frame and persona to generate this report is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Fundamental Economic Process, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, processor, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0074] The computer system 800 includes a processor 801. The processor 801 may be a general-purpose single or multi-chip microprocessor (e.g., an Advanced RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) Machine (ARM)), a special purpose microprocessor (e.g., a digital signal processor (DSP)), a microcontroller, a programmable gate array, etc. The processor 801 may be referred to as a central processing unit (CPU). Although just a single processor 801 is shown in the computer system 800 of FIG. 8, in an alternative configuration, a combination of processors (e.g., an ARM and DSP) could be used.
[0075] The computer system 800 also includes memory 803 in electronic communication with the processor 801. The memory 803 may be any electronic component capable of storing electronic information. For example, the memory 803 may be embodied as random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash memory devices in RAM, on-board memory included with the processor, erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) memory, registers, and so forth, including combinations thereof. ”
Which states that any computer with a processor and memory can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, desktop, cell phone, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, processor, prompt generator, report manager, memory, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible, and Claim 1 has no additional elements.
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 15-21 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 14-21 are allowable over the prior art of record and would be allowable if the independent claim was amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
The closest prior art of record are Fitzpatrick (U.S. Publication No. 2025/034,2311), Johnston (U.S. Publication No. 2020/027,7848), and Kulkarni (U.S. Publication No. 2023/040,9783). Fitzpatrick, a system and method for generating content based on user inputs, teaches receiving a query to generate the report, the query including a time period and a persona, the persona including a frame of reference for the report, generating a prompt for a report model, a prompt including the time period and the persona, inputting the prompt to the report model, the report model generating the drilling report, wherein the report model generates the report based on a primary source and one or more secondary sources, the primary source and the one or more secondary sources including subject matter associated with the persona, and providing the report to a user, it does not explicitly teach that this is for drilling or that there is an annotated drilling report used to train the drilling report model, or identifiers. Johnston, a well planning system, teaches use of drilling information and reporting with training aspects, queries, and prompts, as well as use of AI and machine learning. Johnston also teaches second layers of input, identifiers being used in conjunction with the learning, and use of trained neural networks, but it does not teach use of an annotated drilling report. Kulkarni, a machine learning based approach to well test analysis system and method, teaches a first and second machine learning model being used with query and prompt data, and use of multiple sources, but does not explicitly state an annotated drilling report used to train the drilling report model. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches this particular manner as to which an annotated drilling report is used to train the drilling report model, along with the other limitations of the claims in combination, as Applicant points out on pgs. 7-8 of the Remarks of 1/16/2026, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-7 and 14-21 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250342311 A1
Fitzpatrick; Peter et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING CONTENT BASED ON USER INPUT
US 20230409783 A1
KULKARNI; Mandar Shrikant et al.
A MACHINE LEARNING BASED APPROACH TO WELL TEST ANALYSIS
US 20200277848 A1
JOHNSTON; Lucian et al.
WELL PLANNING SYSTEM
US 20240352839 A1
Wheatley; Robb et al.
OILFIELD SYSTEM
US 20240095429 A1
Hudson; Nicholas et al.
FIELD DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
US 20230399935 A1
Guedes de Carvalho; Rafael et al.
APPROACHES TO GENERATING RECORDS ABOUT WELLSITE EVENTS
US 20220237550 A1
Jennings; Sean Daniel et al.
ENTERPRISE LEGAL PLATFORM BACKED BY CUSTOM TABLES INTEGRATED INTO A DATA LAKE
US 20250356273 A1
Menon; Shashi et al.
PREDICTING SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLAN PERFORMANCE OVER TIME
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 2/6/2026
Prosecution Insights