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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. The claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The claim is directed to a computer-implemented method for optimizing resource usage for developing oil reservoirs and requires generating, for each reservoir, a probabilistic reservoir profile that includes a stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP) estimation and an associated confidence level; generating a probability distribution of the amount of existing oil reserves; extracting from that probability distribution a STOIIP estimation corresponding to the same confidence level as the probabilistic profile; calculating a numerical difference between two independently generated STOIIP values; and determining correctness based on whether that difference is less than a predefined threshold. These operations are not steps that can practically be performed in the human mind.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. These claims recite limitations that, as drafted, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation, are abstract. These limitations do not recite any particular additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B. These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of “computer-implemented method,” is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “computer-implemented method” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “computer-implemented method” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In particular, the claim requires generating a probability distribution of oil reserves and extracting a STOIIP value from that distribution at a specified confidence level. As further reflected in dependent claim 17, generating the probability distribution comprises "generating, using a Monte Carlo Simulation, based on the simulation configuration, the probability distribution of a STOIIP estimation of the amount of oil reserves of the oil reservoir." The specification likewise expressly describes generating the probability distribution using Monte Carlo simulation based on a "simulation configuration," including selecting a STOIIP estimation equation and selecting sample distributions for one or more sensitivities of that equation, and using sampled values to generate a statistically balanced STOIIP probability distribution (see, e.g., [0042]-[0049] and [0080]-[0083]). The specification further explains that evaluating correctness involves extracting from the probability distribution a STOIIP estimation having the same confidence level as the probabilistic profile (e.g., P10/P50/P90), calculating a difference between the extracted value and the probabilistic-profile STOIIP estimate, and comparing the difference to a predefined threshold to determine correctness (see, e.g., [0053]-[0056] and [0084]-[0091]). Even focusing only on claim 1, the recited "probability distribution" is not a simple list of numbers that a human could casually inspect; it is the output of computational modeling applied to reservoir physical parameters through probabilistic sampling and simulation. Extracting a value at a specific confidence level from such a distribution and performing the claimed difference calculation across multiple reservoirs is therefore a computer-driven statistical validation process, not a mental observation or evaluation.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the Monte Carlo simulation of claim 17, as drafted, is part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. If Applicant wishes for the claim to reflect a “computer drive statistical validation process,” Examiner suggests amending the claim to incorporate further details regarding the computer, or how, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed simulation cannot be performed mentally or manually.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The Federal Circuit has made clear that the mere fact that a claim involves data or numbers does not render it a mental process. In McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court explained that rules- based automation of a technical process is not abstract simply because it involves calculations. Similarly, in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), mathematical relationships used in a physical tracking system were not abstract because they were applied in a specific technological context. Here, the calculations are not claimed in the abstract, but rather are tied to petroleum reservoir modeling, STOIIP estimation, and validation of ranking correctness for oil reservoir development. The claim is directed to a specific technological workflow for verifying probabilistic reservoir profiles, not to the idea of "comparing two numbers" in the abstract.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not provide a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality. The claims of McRo recite automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation, which provided a clear improvement to a computer functionality (i.e. computer animation). In contrast, the instant claims do not recite an analogous improvement to a computer functionality. The claims recite an abstract evaluation process for oil reservoir development. The claims employ generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea that, even while limiting the use of the idea to a particular technical environment, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Rather, it recites a structured and specific sequence of technical operations applied within a defined technological environment, e.g., petroleum reservoir modeling and development planning.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These present claims may provide a specific manner of petroleum reservoir modeling and development planning, but this is not an improvement to any additional elements. The independent claim merely recites that the method is “computer implemented” within the preamble of the claim. The claim does not recite any further additional elements for consideration.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for optimizing resource usage for developing oil reservoirs. The claimed process requires receiving input parameters that indicate physical properties of actual oil reservoirs; generating reservoir profiles comprising STOIIP estimations and associated confidence levels; generating probability distributions of existing oil reserves; and verifying the correctness of reservoir ranking by extracting matched confidence-level values from those distributions and comparing them using a predefined technical threshold. The output of this process is not merely information for display or generic analysis; it is a validated reservoir ranking used to optimize development planning and resource allocation in oil reservoir exploitation.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that these listed limitations above are all part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim merely describes the selection of an oil reservoir for developing, which, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract step for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements associated with the selected oil reservoir. The claim does not recite, for example, displaying the selected oil reservoir on a computing screen. The claim does not recite performing oil development.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “They are applied within a specific petroleum engineering workflow that evaluates the correctness of probabilistic reservoir modeling used for development decisions. The claim therefore improves the technical process of reservoir evaluation by introducing a defined statistical validation mechanism that ensures consistency between probabilistic profiles and generated distributions before development resources are allocated.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the purported improvement of selecting an oil reservoir through the use of a defined statistical validation mechanism would be an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. This type of improvement would not be an improvement to any additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “As explained in MPEP §2106.04(d)(1), integration into a practical application may be shown where the claim applies a judicial exception in a manner that improves a technical field or applies it with a particular machine or manufacture integral to the claim. Here, the claim improves the technical field of reservoir development planning by introducing a structured probabilistic verification mechanism that enhances the reliability of STOIIP-based ranking schemes. The claimed confidence-level matching and threshold-based correctness determination are not generic post-solution activity; they are central to the technological validation process.,” Examiner has not asserted that any of the limitations of the claims are directed to post-solution activity under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B. Rather, the claims are directed to abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Examiner respectfully asserts that the purported improvement of reservoir planning by using a structured probabilistic verification mechanism would be an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. This type of improvement would not be an improvement to any additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Under MPEP §2106.05, additional elements amount to significantly more when they are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant field. There is no evidence in the Office Action that the claimed sequence of generating STOIIP probability distributions, extracting matched confidence-level values, computing differences, and determining correctness based on a predefined threshold was well- understood, routine, and conventional in petroleum reservoir development systems. The Office has not established, with evidentiary support, that this specific probabilistic validation workflow was conventional. In the absence of such evidence, the rejection cannot be sustained. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).,” Examiner has not asserted that any of the limitations of the claims are directed to post-solution activity under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B. Rather, the claims are directed to abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Therefore, while Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument, Applicant’s argument is moot because the claims are not rejected as being directed to “well-understood, routine, or conventional” activity.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Nevertheless, and solely to advance prosecution, claim 1 has been amended to further recite "excluding the probabilistic profile from the ranking when the calculated difference is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold' and "selecting an oil reservoir for developing according to the ranking or an evaluated ranking resulting from the verification." See, e.g., paragraphs [0054], [0056], [0057], and [0084] of the specification as published. These additional limitations make explicit that the claimed verification is not merely analytical, but directly controls the technical ranking outcome and the ultimate development decision. The amended claim now requires not only generating a probability distribution, extracting a STOIIP value at a matched confidence level, calculating a difference, and determining correctness based on a predefined threshold, but also modifying the ranking by excluding profiles that fail verification and selecting a reservoir for development according to the verified or evaluated ranking.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the amended claim limitations do not recite any particular additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B. Rather, these limitations are part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide anything significantly more because they are part of the abstract limitations.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. Examiner has deemed Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The present claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. See the allowable subject matter section below.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/26/2026 and 02/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the information disclosure statement of 10/10/2024, Examiner has now fully considered said IDS. Examiner thanks Applicant for providing the copy of the NPL reference.
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 1-19 and 29 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-19 and 29 are directed to a method. Therefore, the claims are directed to a patent eligible category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 1 is relates to ranking a plurality of oil reservoirs, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 1 recites limitations including
“receiving, for each oil reservoir of a plurality of oil reservoirs, one or more input parameters, wherein each of the one or more input parameters indicates a physical property of the corresponding oil reservoir; generating, for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, a reservoir profile based on the corresponding one or more input parameters, wherein the reservoir profile comprises at least one probabilistic profile; wherein a probabilistic profile includes: a stock tank oil initially in place, STOIIP, estimation of the amount of existing oil reserves in the oil reservoir; and a confidence level for the STOIIP estimation; ranking the plurality of oil reservoirs based on the generated reservoir profile according to a ranking scheme, the ranking scheme comprising one or more ranking parameters; generating, for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, a probability distribution of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir for evaluating the correctness of the ranking, wherein evaluating the correctness of the ranking comprises verifying the correctness of the at least one probabilistic profile for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, wherein verifying comprises: extracting, for each probabilistic profile, a STOIIP estimation of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir from the probability distribution with the same confidence level as the corresponding probabilistic profile; calculating a difference between the amount from the probability distribution and the amount from the probabilistic profile; and determining the correctness of the probabilistic profile if the difference is less than a predefined threshold; excluding the probabilistic profile from the ranking when the calculated difference is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold; and selecting an oil reservoir for developing according to the ranking or an evaluated ranking resulting from the verification.” These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of “computer-implemented method,” is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “computer-implemented method” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “computer-implemented method” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
18. Dependent claims 2-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
19. Dependent claim 29 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
20. Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method that recites “a computer-implemented method for optimizing resource usage for developing an oil reservoir, the method comprising” within the preamble of the claim. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim merely adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
21. Dependent claims 2-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
22. Dependent claim 29 further recites the additional elements of “a data processing device comprising: a memory; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory, the memory and the one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 1.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
23. Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claim 29, when considered both individually and in the context of claim 1, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
24. Step 2B: Independent claim 1 does not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 is a method that recites “a computer-implemented method for optimizing resource usage for developing an oil reservoir, the method comprising” within the preamble of the claim. This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim merely adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, claim 1 does not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
25. Dependent claims 2-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
26. Dependent claim 29 further recites the additional elements of “a data processing device comprising: a memory; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory, the memory and the one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 1.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
27. Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claim 29, when considered both individually and in the context of claim 1, is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
28. Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 29 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Pilcher et al. ("Ranking production potential based on key geological drivers-Bakken case study." 2011.) discloses receiving, for each oil reservoir of a plurality of oil reservoirs, one or more input parameters, wherein each of the one or more input parameters indicates a physical property of the corresponding oil reservoir, generating, for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, a reservoir profile based on the corresponding one or more input parameters, wherein the reservoir profile comprises at least one probabilistic profile; wherein a probabilistic profile includes: a stock tank oil initially in place, STOllP, estimation of the amount of existing oil reserves in the oil reservoir; and a confidence level for the STOIIP estimation; ranking the plurality of oil reservoirs based on the generated reservoir profile according to a ranking scheme, the ranking scheme comprising one or more ranking parameters. However, Pilcher fails to explicitly teach or disclose generating, for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, a probability distribution of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir for evaluating the correctness of the ranking, wherein evaluating the correctness of the ranking comprises verifying the correctness of the at least one probabilistic profile for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, wherein verifying comprises: extracting, for each probabilistic profile, a STOIIP estimation of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir from the probability distribution with the same confidence level as the corresponding probabilistic profile; calculating a difference between the amount from the probability distribution and the amount from the probabilistic profile; and determining the correctness of the probabilistic profile if the difference is less than a predefined threshold; excluding the probabilistic profile from the ranking when the calculated difference is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold; and selecting an oil reservoir for developing according to the ranking or an evaluated ranking resulting from the verification.
Burch et al. (US 20180204139 A1) discloses generating, for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, a probability distribution of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir for evaluating the correctness of the ranking. While Burch discloses comparing the uncertainty of a distribution of potential well performances to a threshold in order to determine the highest predicted well performance, Burch discloses the distribution is based on the predicted return on investment, and not based on STOIIP. In particular, Burch fails to explicitly teach or disclose wherein evaluating the correctness of the ranking comprises verifying the correctness of the at least one probabilistic profile for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, wherein verifying comprises: extracting, for each probabilistic profile, a STOIIP estimation of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir from the probability distribution with the same confidence level as the corresponding probabilistic profile; calculating a difference between the amount from the probability distribution and the amount from the probabilistic profile; and determining the correctness of the probabilistic profile if the difference is less than a predefined threshold; excluding the probabilistic profile from the ranking when the calculated difference is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold; and selecting an oil reservoir for developing according to the ranking or an evaluated ranking resulting from the verification.
Benhallam et al. (US 20190325331 A1) discloses ranking various well placement candidate zones on maps, wherein the maps are based on the spatial distribution of oil in place. However, the confidence estimation of Benhallam is based on the probability of exceeding the forecasted rate. Benhallam fails to explicitly teach or disclose wherein evaluating the correctness of the ranking comprises verifying the correctness of the at least one probabilistic profile for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, wherein verifying comprises: extracting, for each probabilistic profile, a STOIIP estimation of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir from the probability distribution with the same confidence level as the corresponding probabilistic profile; calculating a difference between the amount from the probability distribution and the amount from the probabilistic profile; and determining the correctness of the probabilistic profile if the difference is less than a predefined threshold; excluding the probabilistic profile from the ranking when the calculated difference is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold; and selecting an oil reservoir for developing according to the ranking or an evaluated ranking resulting from the verification.
Society of Petroleum engineers (“Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum Reserves and Resources,” 2001) discloses evaluating the probabilistic STOIIP for different sands and determining the mean of the P85, P50, and P15. This reference further discloses utilizing probability density functions in order to determine the probability as a function of one or more variables, such as hydrocarbon volume and evaluating the percentiles including P90, P50, and P10. However, this reference fails to explicitly teach or disclose wherein evaluating the correctness of the ranking comprises verifying the correctness of the at least one probabilistic profile for each oil reservoir of the plurality of oil reservoirs, wherein verifying comprises: extracting, for each probabilistic profile, a STOIIP estimation of an amount of existing oil reserves of the oil reservoir from the probability distribution with the same confidence level as the corresponding probabilistic profile; calculating a difference between the amount from the probability distribution and the amount from the probabilistic profile; and determining the correctness of the probabilistic profile if the difference is less than a predefined threshold; excluding the probabilistic profile from the ranking when the calculated difference is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold; and selecting an oil reservoir for developing according to the ranking or an evaluated ranking resulting from the verification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Saidu (“Integrated Evaluation of a Wet Gas Reservoir: Minimizing Volumetric Uncertainties Using Dynamic Analysis,” 2019) discloses developing PDFs for the stock tank oil initially in place and recoverable reserves including the discrete values P90, P50, and P10, wherein sub-surface realizations can be excluded from the model as the constraints imposed on the parameters are physically impossible
Prochnow (US 20230230338 A1) discloses generating range distribution values and performing unsupervised learning on parameters including reservoir original oil in place
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 Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights