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 .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 extension fee 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.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 02/10/2026, Applicant, on 05/06/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claim 26 is canceled.
Claims 1-15 and 17-26 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The present claims mirror cases like Billing v. United States or FairWarning IP v. latric Systems where the court ruled that collecting, analyzing, and displaying data for risk or compliance purposes is an abstract idea, regardless of how complex the scoring algorithm is.
Further, the additional elements in the claims (a processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium) do not improve any existing technology. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two. The improvement in classifying root cause of sub-optimal performance as argued by Applicant is not persuasive because the claimed steps are performed using a generic computer performing generic computer function to determine the root-cause. Further, the present claims do not positively recite what is the remedial action (similar to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)) as argued by Applicant. As a result, The Examiner submits that the present claims are distinguished from the Diamond v. Diehr, and Example 25.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office 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 1-15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-15 and 17-26 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-15 and 17-26 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining root cause of a sub-optimal production performance of a hydrocarbon wells by comparing forecasted and actual well performance and plotting a scattered plot representing the well production performances.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “a method for classifying a root cause of a sub-optimal production performance for hydrocarbon wells associated with at least one unconventional reservoir, wherein the method comprises: for each of a plurality of hydrocarbon wells: determining an expected production performance of the hydrocarbon well during each of multiple units of time via performance forecasting; determining an actual production performance of the hydrocarbon well during each of the multiple units of time based on production data corresponding to hydrocarbon production via the hydrocarbon well; determining a performance delta value for each of the multiple units of time by subtracting the sum of the actual production performance for each unit of time from the sum of the expected production performance for the same unit of time; and determining a volatility in the performance delta values for the hydrocarbon well using a statistical metric; generating a scatter plot representing production performances of the plurality of hydrocarbon wells, wherein the scatter plot comprises the volatility in the performance delta values for each hydrocarbon well versus a most recent performance delta value for the corresponding hydrocarbon well, and wherein the most recent performance delta value comprises the performance delta value for the unit of time corresponding to a most recently-occurring time period; and classifying a root cause of a sub-optimal production performance of at least a portion of the hydrocarbon wells based on quadrants of the scatter plot; and performing at least one remedial action with respect to at least one of the hydrocarbon wells based on the classification of the root cause of the sub- optimal production performance”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary skilled in the art can reasonably analyze actual and forecasted well performance data to plot volatility performance and determine root cause for underperformed wells. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 17 and 25 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 17 and 25 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-15 and 18-24 recite Mental Process because an ordinary skilled in the art can reasonably analyze actual and forecasted well performance data to plot volatility performance and determine root cause for under performance. As a result, claims 2-15 and 18-24 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “wherein at least a portion of the method is implemented via a computing system comprising a processor, and”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 17 and 25 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 17 further recites “A hydrocarbon well system, comprising: multiple hydrocarbon wells, wherein hydrocarbon fluids are produced from each hydrocarbon well concurrently with a measurement of corresponding production data; and a computing system that is communicably coupled to the multiple hydrocarbon wells, wherein the computing system comprises: a processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to” and claim 25 further recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 17 and 25 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-15 and 18-24 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 17, and 25. As a result, claims 2-15 and 18-24 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “wherein at least a portion of the method is implemented via a computing system comprising a processor, and”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 17 and 25 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 17 further recites “A hydrocarbon well system, comprising: multiple hydrocarbon wells, wherein hydrocarbon fluids are produced from each hydrocarbon well concurrently with a measurement of corresponding production data; and a computing system that is communicably coupled to the multiple hydrocarbon wells, wherein the computing system comprises: a processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to” and claim 25 further recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 17 and 25 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-15 and 18-24 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 17, and 25. As a result, claims 2-15 and 18-24 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bruns Jared (WO 2022094167 A1) teaches for a control action for a hydraulic fracturing operation of a well, using a trained machine learning model that predicts treatment pressure of the hydraulic fracturing operation, determining if the control action increases efficiency; if the control action increases efficiency, assessing viability of the control action with respect to one or more predefined criteria; and if the control action is viable, issuing the control action for implementation during the hydraulic fracturing operation, wherein the issuing comprises rendering a graphical user interface to a display wherein the graphical user interface comprises a visualization of the control action, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a visualization derived from real-time data acquired during performance of the hydraulic fracturing operation
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 05/06/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights