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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s June 13, 2025 filing.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e. mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-10 are to method (process), claims 11-15 are to a system (machine) and claims 16 are to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mental processes. Where mental processes relate to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A method of logging software usage and tracking user subject matter expertise, the method comprising:
capturing a plurality of software logs from a plurality of extraction and production systems;
aggregating metadata from the plurality of software logs according to a plurality of categories;
receiving a search term at a user interface;
identifying a first user of the plurality of extraction and production systems based upon the search term;
determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the first user has:
spent more than a first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first category; or
created or modified more than a first predetermined number of the files associated with the first category; and
displaying an identification of the first user and the expertise in the first category.
The claims are direct towards tracking user subject matter expertise. Where the expert is determined by reviewing known data to determine which users spent more time or interacted with files associated with a category. The claims are made to a high level so that the elements can perform by a human using the computer as a tool to gather data and aggregate data to make observations and judgments about the user.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The capturing and receiving elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. The displaying element is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Where the specification provides “information processing apparatus such as general purpose processors or application specific chips, such as ASICs, FPGAs, PLDs, or other appropriate devices. These modules, combinations of these modules, and/or their combination with general hardware are included within the scope of the present disclosure” (Spec. [82]).
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forney (US 2007/012997 A1).
Claim 1
Forney teaches a method of logging software usage and tracking user subject matter expertise (Forney [51] “one source from which to glean this type of information is data interactions (initiated by all users in the system, including users of systems 201, 202, 203 and 206). This and other information is provided to data store 204 and is illustratively tracked at a layer above systems 201, 20, 203 and 206, supported by a separate metadata tracking system”), the method comprising:
capturing a plurality of software logs from a plurality of extraction and production systems (Forney [74] “there can be many desirable entry points to ERP-related, as well as ERP-unrelated, data interactions. All of this is illustratively captured by data ecosystem” and [105] “capture SME wherever it lives in the corporate environment to build corporate domain expertise and expose good data from experts on the data”);
aggregating metadata from the plurality of software logs according to a plurality of categories (Forney [44] “relationship of User+Context+Content illustratively feeds into queries and to an attachment of metadata to data” and [59] “an extremely broad range of different types of data and data interactions that can be monitored and recorded for the purpose of building data store 204, and ultimately for supporting the identification of data relevant to a given user and their related context”);
receiving a search term at a user interface (Forney [83] “a query that reflects attributes of a given individual (e.g., role, circle of influence, projects, tasks, processes, expertise, interests, teams” and [122] “a user can scroll through candidate concepts, or select a candidate concept by key word searching”);
identifying a first user of the plurality of extraction and production systems based upon the search term (Forney [58] “history of interactions in information store 204 potentially can reveal both the identity of an expert, as well as the identity of data related to his or her expertise.”);
determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the first user has (Forney [43] “subject matter expertise and any other recordable system relationship that may or may not be related to interaction with a user of system”, [53] “Harnessing and harvesting the combined expertise of a network of other users enables this to be done”, and [58] “history of interactions in information store 204 potentially can reveal both the identity of an expert, as well as the identity of data related to his or her expertise”):
spent more than a first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first category (Forney [85] “Document 506 is illustratively a document having applicable content worthy of being raised as expertise (e.g., tagging indicates that an expert 504 recently reviewed the document for a significantly long period of time and emailed it to other related experts).” Where the limitation is made in the alternative only element need to be present in the art); or
created or modified more than a first predetermined number of the files associated with the first category (Forney Where the limitation is made in the alternative only element need to be present in the art); and
displaying an identification of the first user and the expertise in the first category (Forney [83] “a context-specific query is generated. This is illustratively a query that reflects attributes of a given individual (e.g., role, circle of influence, projects, tasks, processes, expertise, interests, teams, etc.) associated with the query.” And [136] “the content of at least some of the displays is automatically selected, potentially from different data sources, based on contextual relevancy (e.g., content is fed by queries against the data ecosystem specifically intended to surface contextually relevant data from a variety of data sources).”).
Claim 2
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, wherein the categories comprise at least one of: extraction and production system types, input data types, output data types, geographic areas, geological environments, collaborators, and workflows (Forney [153] and [156], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
Claim 4
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, wherein the first user is determined to have the expertise in the first category in response to the metadata showing that the first user has spent more than the first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first category (Forney [77] and [85]).
Claim 5
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, wherein the first user is determined to have the expertise in the first category in response to the metadata showing that the first user has created or modified more than the first predetermined number of the files associated with the first category (Forney [77] and [90]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forney (US 2007/012997 A1) as applied above, and further in view of De Sousa Webber (US 2017/00533025 A1).
Claim 3
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 2, however Forney does not expressly teach the limitation of wherein the workflows comprise at least one of: seismic interpretation, 3D model building, reservoir modeling, reservoir simulation, production engineering, and drilling.
De Sousa Webber, in the analogous art of acting on the first streamed document, teaches wherein the workflows comprise at least one of: seismic interpretation, 3D model building, reservoir modeling, reservoir simulation, production engineering, and drilling (De Sousa Webber [4] and [137] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
Forney contemplates models in at least (Forney [61] and [167]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the workflows comprise at least one of: seismic interpretation, 3D model building, reservoir modeling, reservoir simulation, production engineering, and drilling as taught by De Sousa Webber since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, however Forney does not expressly teach the limitation of wherein the files associated with the first category have a verified accuracy greater than a first accuracy threshold.
De Sousa Webber, in the analogous art of acting on the first streamed document, teaches wherein the files associated with the first category have a verified accuracy greater than a first accuracy threshold.
Forney contemplates accuracy in it ERP in at least (Forney [130]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the files associated with the first category have a verified accuracy greater than a first accuracy threshold as taught by De Sousa Webber since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forney (US 2007/012997 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Rausch et al (US 2021/0158171 A1).
Claim 7
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, however Forney does not expressly teach the limitation of wherein each category comprises one or more attributes, and wherein the one or more attributes comprise at least one of: porosity, permeability, flow, temperature, pressure, velocity, geological time, geological depth, and facies.
Rausch, in an analogous art of intelligent data curation, teaches the limitations of wherein each category comprises one or more attributes, and wherein the one or more attributes comprise at least one of: porosity, permeability, flow, temperature, pressure, velocity, geological time, geological depth, and facies (Rausch [104] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be present in the art).
Forney contemplates classification (Forney [52] and [71]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the wherein each category comprises one or more attributes, and wherein the one or more attributes comprise at least one of: porosity, permeability, flow, temperature, pressure, velocity, geological time, geological depth, and facies as taught by Rausch since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, however Forney does not expressly teach the limitation of further comprising performing a wellsite action in response to input from the first user, wherein the wellsite action is associated with the first category.
Rausch, in an analogous art of intelligent data curation, teaches the limitations of further comprising performing a wellsite action in response to input from the first user, wherein the wellsite action is associated with the first category (Rausch [104]).
Forney contemplates classification (Forney [52] and [71]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the performing a wellsite action in response to input from the first user, wherein the wellsite action is associated with the first category as taught by Rausch since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 9, however Forney does not expressly teach the limitation of wherein the wellsite action comprises selecting where to drill a wellbore, drilling the wellbore, varying a weight and/or torque on a drill bit that is drilling the wellbore, varying a drilling trajectory of the wellbore, or varying a concentration and/or flow rate of a fluid pumped into the wellbore.
Rausch, in an analogous art of intelligent data curation, teaches the limitations of wherein the wellsite action comprises selecting where to drill a wellbore, drilling the wellbore, varying a weight and/or torque on a drill bit that is drilling the wellbore, varying a drilling trajectory of the wellbore, or varying a concentration and/or flow rate of a fluid pumped into the wellbore (Rausch [2] and [104])
Forney contemplates classification (Forney [52] and [71]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the wellsite action comprises selecting where to drill a wellbore, drilling the wellbore, varying a weight and/or torque on a drill bit that is drilling the wellbore, varying a drilling trajectory of the wellbore, or varying a concentration and/or flow rate of a fluid pumped into the wellbore as taught by Rausch since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forney (US 2007/012997 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2020/0175522 A1).
Claim 8
Forney teaches all the limitations of the method of Claim 7, further comprising determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the attributes in response to the metadata showing that the first user has ((Forney [43], [53], and [58]); however Forney does not expressly teach the limitations of
spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute; or
created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute, wherein the files associated with the first attribute have a verified accuracy within a second accuracy threshold.
Zhang, in the analogous art of predicting online customer service request, teaches the claimed limitation of:
spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute (Zhang [107] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art); or
created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute, wherein the files associated with the first attribute have a verified accuracy within a second accuracy threshold (Zhang [107] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute; or created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute, wherein the files associated with the first attribute have a verified accuracy within a second accuracy threshold as taught by Zhang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11
Forney teaches a computing system (Forney [27]), comprising:
one or more processors (Forney [28]); and
a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, (Forney [29-31]) the operations comprising:
capturing a plurality of software logs from a plurality of extraction and production systems (Forney [74] and [105]);
aggregating metadata from the plurality of software logs according to a plurality of categories, wherein each category comprises one or more attributes (Forney [44], [59], and [68]);
receiving a search term at a user interface (Forney [83] and [122]);
identifying a first user of the plurality of extraction and production systems based upon the search term (Forney [58]);
determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the first user has (Forney [43], [53], and [58]):
spent more than a first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first category (Forney [58]); and
created or modified more than a first predetermined number of the files associated with the first category (Forney [77]);
determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the attributes of the first category in response to the metadata showing that the first user has (Forney [43], [53], and [58]):
displaying the identification of the first user, the expertise in the first category, (Forney [83] and [136]) and
first user to request expert help related to the first category and the first attribute (Forney [64]).
Forney does not expressly teach the limitations of
determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the attributes of the first category in response to the metadata showing that the first user has:
spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute; and
created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute; and
Zhang, in the analogous art of predicting online customer service request, teaches the claimed limitation of:
spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute (Zhang [4] and [107]); and
created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute (Zhang [4] and [107]); and
the expertise in the first attribute for use in a hiring process or to contact the
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the attributes of the first category in response to the metadata showing that the first user has: spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute; and created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute; as taught by Zhang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12
Forney in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the computing system of Claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise identifying a second user of the plurality of extraction and production systems based upon the search term (Forney [53] and figure 2).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forney (US 2007/012997 A1) in view of Zhang et al (US 2020/0175522 A1) as applied above, and further Carlson et al (US 2016/0343017 A1).
Claim 13
Forney in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the computing system of Claim 12, however Forney in view of Zhang does not expressly teach the limitations of wherein the operations further comprise determining that the second user has a lack of expertise in a second of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the second user has
spent less than the first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second category; and
created or modified less than the first predetermined number of the files associated with the second category, wherein the files associated with the second category have a verified accuracy outside of an accuracy threshold.
Carlson, in the analogous art of providing and adjusting offers, teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining that the second user has a lack of expertise in a second of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the second user has (Carlson [41])
spent less than the first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second category (Carlson [44] and [332]); and
created or modified less than the first predetermined number of the files associated with the second category, wherein the files associated with the second category have a verified accuracy outside of an accuracy threshold (Carlson [44] and [333]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney in view of Zhang the determining that the second user has a lack of expertise in a second of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the second user has spent less than the first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second category; and created or modified less than the first predetermined number of the files associated with the second category, wherein the files associated with the second category have a verified accuracy outside of an accuracy threshold as taught by Carlson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14
Forney in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the computing system of Claim 12, however Forney in view of Zhang does not expressly teach the following limitations but Carlson, in the analogous art of providing and adjusting offers, does teach wherein the operations further comprise determining that the second user has a lack expertise in a second of the attributes of the second category in response to the metadata showing that the second user has (Carlson [41]):
spent less than the second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second attribute (Carlson [332-333]); and
created less than the second predetermined number of the files associated with the second attribute, wherein the files associated with the second attribute have a verified accuracy outside of an accuracy threshold (Carlson [332-333]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney in view of Zhang the operations further comprise determining that the second user has a lack expertise in a second of the attributes of the second category in response to the metadata showing that the second user has spent less than the second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second attribute; and created less than the second predetermined number of the files associated with the second attribute, wherein the files associated with the second attribute have a verified accuracy outside of an accuracy threshold as taught by Carlson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15
Forney in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the computing system of Claim 14, however Forney in view of Zhang does not expressly teach the following limitations but Carlson, in the analogous art of providing and adjusting offers, does teach wherein the operations further comprise displaying the identification of the second user and the lack of expertise in the second attribute for use in a training process (Carlson [32] and [201]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney in view of Zhang the operations further comprise displaying the identification of the second user and the lack of expertise in the second attribute for use in a training process as taught by Carlson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forney (US 2007/012997 A1) in view of Zhang et al (US 2020/0175522 A1), Rausch et al (US 2021/0158171 A1), De Sousa Webber (US 2017/0053025 A1) and Carlson et al (US 2016/0343017 A1).
Claim 16
Forney teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations (Forney [29] and [31]), the operations comprising:
capturing a plurality of software logs from a plurality of extraction and production systems, wherein the software logs are captured by an application program interface (API) (Forney [11], [74], and [105]);
aggregating metadata from the plurality of software logs according to a plurality of categories, (Forney [44], [59], and [68]) wherein the categories comprise at least one of: extraction and production system types, input data types, output data types, geographic areas, geological environments, collaborators, and workflows (Forney [153] and [156], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art),
receiving a search term at a user interface (Forney [83] and [122]);
identifying a first user and a second user of the plurality of extraction and production systems based upon the search term (Forney [140]);
determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the first user has (Forney [43], [53], and [58]):
spent more than a first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first category (Forney [58]); and
created or modified more than a first predetermined number of the files associated with the first category (Forney [77]),
creating or updating a tore that includes (Forney [44], [59], and [68]):
an identification of the first user, the expertise in the first category, and the expertise in the first attribute (Forney [44], [59], and [68]); and
determining that the first user has an expertise in a first of the attributes of the first category in response to the metadata showing that the first user has (Forney [43], [53], and [58]):
displaying the identification of the first user, the expertise in the first category, and the expertise in the first attribute for use in a hiring process or to contact the first user to request expert help related to the first category and the first attribute (Forney [44], [59], and [68]); and
Forney does not expressly teach the limitations of
wherein the workflows comprise at least one of: seismic interpretation, 3D model building, reservoir modeling, reservoir simulation, production engineering, and drilling, wherein each category comprises one or more attributes, and wherein the one or more attributes comprise at least one of: porosity, permeability, flow, temperature, pressure, velocity, geological time, geological depth, and facies;
wherein the files associated with the first category have a verified accuracy within a first accuracy threshold;
spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute, and
created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute, wherein the files associated with the first attribute have a verified accuracy within a second accuracy threshold;
determining that the second user has a lack of expertise in a second of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the second user has:
spent less than the first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second category; and
created or modified less than the first predetermined number of the files associated with the second category, wherein the files associated with the second category have a verified accuracy outside of the first accuracy threshold;
determining that the second user has a lack expertise in a second of the attributes of the second category in response to the metadata showing that the second user has:
spent less than the second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second attribute; and
created less than the second predetermined number of the files associated with the second attribute, wherein the files associated with the second attribute have a verified accuracy outside of the second accuracy threshold;
creating or updating a consolidated data store that includes:
an identification of the first user, the expertise in the first category, and the expertise in the first attribute; and
an identification of the second user, the lack of expertise in the second category, and the lack of expertise in the second attribute;
displaying the identification of the second user, the lack of expertise in the second category, and the lack of expertise in the second attribute for use in a training process.
3D model building, reservoir modeling, reservoir simulation, production engineering, and drilling,
Rausch, in an analogous art of intelligent data curation, teaches the limitations of wherein the workflows comprise at least one of: seismic interpretation, wherein each category comprises one or more attributes, and wherein the one or more attributes comprise at least one of: porosity, permeability, flow, temperature, pressure, velocity, geological time, geological depth, and facies; (Rausch [104] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be present in the art).
Forney contemplates classification (Forney [52] and [71]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the wherein each category comprises one or more attributes, and wherein the one or more attributes comprise at least one of: porosity, permeability, flow, temperature, pressure, velocity, geological time, geological depth, and facies as taught by Rausch since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
De Sousa Webber, in the analogous art of acting on the first streamed document, teaches wherein the files associated with the first category have a verified accuracy within a first accuracy threshold;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the files associated with the first category have a verified accuracy within a first accuracy threshold as taught by De Sousa Webber since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Zhang, in the analogous art of predicting online customer service request, teaches the claimed limitation of:
spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute (Zhang [107]), and
created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute, wherein the files associated with the first attribute have a verified accuracy within a second accuracy threshold (Zhang [107]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the spent more than a second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the first attribute; or created more than a second predetermined number of the files associated with the first attribute, wherein the files associated with the first attribute have a verified accuracy within a second accuracy threshold as taught by Zhang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Carlson, in the analogous art of providing and adjusting offers, teaches
determining that the second user has a lack of expertise in a second of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the second user has (Carlson [41]):
spent less than the first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second category (Carlson [44] and [332]); and
created or modified less than the first predetermined number of the files associated with the second category, wherein the files associated with the second category have a verified accuracy outside of the first accuracy threshold; (Carlson [44] and [333])
determining that the second user has a lack expertise in a second of the attributes of the second category in response to the metadata showing that the second user has (Carlson [41]):
spent less than the second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second attribute (Carlson [332-333]); and
created less than the second predetermined number of the files associated with the second attribute, wherein the files associated with the second attribute have a verified accuracy outside of the second accuracy threshold (Carlson [332-333]);
an identification of the second user, the lack of expertise in the second category, and the lack of expertise in the second attribute (Carlson [32] and [201]);
displaying the identification of the second user, the lack of expertise in the second category, and the lack of expertise in the second attribute for use in a training process (Carlson [32] and [201]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney the determining that the second user has a lack of expertise in a second of the categories in response to the metadata showing that the second user has spent less than the first predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second category; and created or modified less than the first predetermined number of the files associated with the second category, wherein the files associated with the second category have a verified accuracy outside of an accuracy threshold determining that the second user has a lack expertise in a second of the attributes of the second category in response to the metadata showing that the second user has spent less than the second predetermined amount of time working on files associated with the second attribute; created less than the second predetermined number of the files associated with the second attribute, wherein the files associated with the second attribute have a verified accuracy outside of the second accuracy threshold; displaying the identification of the second user, the lack of expertise in the second category, and the lack of expertise in the second attribute for use in a training process as taught by Carlson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17
Forney, in view of Zhang, Rausch, De Sousa Webber and Carlson teach all the limitations of the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 16, Forney does not expressly teach, but De Sousa Webber, in the analogous art of acting on the first streamed document, teaches wherein the first predetermined amount of time is different than the second predetermined amount of time (De Sousa Webber [13]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney in view of Zhang, Rausch, and Carlson the first predetermined amount of time is different than the second predetermined amount of time as taught by De Sousa Webber since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18
Forney in view of Zhang, Rausch, De Sousa Webber and Carlson teach all the limitations of the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the first predetermined number of files is different than the second predetermined number of files (Forney [159]).
Claim 19
Forney in view of Zhang, Rausch, De Sousa Webber and Carlson teach all the limitations of the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 16, Forney does not expressly teach, but Carlson, in the analogous art of providing and adjusting offers, teaches wherein the first accuracy threshold is different than the second accuracy threshold (Carlson [332-333]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney in view of Zhang, Rausch, and De Sousa Webber the first accuracy threshold is different than the second accuracy threshold as taught by Carlson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20
Forney in view of Zhang, Rausch, De Sousa Webber and Carlson teaches all the limitations of the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 16, Forney does not expressly teach, but Rausch, in an analogous art of intelligent data curation, teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating and transmitting a signal in response to input from the first user after the first user is identified, wherein the signal causes a wellsite action to occur, and wherein the wellsite action is associated with the first category and the first attribute (Rausch [89] and [104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Forney in view of Zhang, De Sousa Webber and Carlson the operations further comprise generating and transmitting a signal in response to input from the first user after the first user is identified, wherein the signal causes a wellsite action to occur, and wherein the wellsite action is associated with the first category and the first attribute as taught by Rausch since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brisebois et al (US 9,317,574 B1) teaches the method includes the computer system generating multidimensional expertise data from the at least one topical metric, the at least one timing metric, and the at least one expertise-scope metric. The multidimensional expertise data is representative of the user's expertise on the topic. The multidimensional expertise data includes a topical dimension, an expertise-scope dimension, and a timeline dimension. The multidimensional expertise data includes an expertise index for the user. The method also includes, for each topic, the computer system ranking the set of users by the expertise index. Also, the method includes the computer system providing a searchable interface.
Caldwell et al (US 2013/0007009 A1) teaches embodiments of the present invention are directed to automatically tagging individual users for identifying expertise or other relevant skills associated with the individual users based on various sources of information used or interacted with by the users. Expertise tagging may include one or more keywords, a set of keywords or a summary of keywords (all searchable) for associating a given expertise or skill set to various users. After expertise tags are established for an individual user, the expertise tagging and other information about the user's profile and computing activities may be used for automatically suggesting a user for membership in one or more other project groups or workspaces that may be a good fit for the user's expertise or other relevant skills. Other users may find a tagged user when searching for a particular area of expertise that relates to the tags associated with various users.
Della Corte et al (US 11,182,266 B2) teaches method for determining subject matter experts includes monitoring, by a computer, an activity performed by a user during a period of time, the activity including a sequence of operations, based on the sequence of operations, determining a topic of the activity performed by the user, recognizing, by the computer, a hesitation pattern of the user associated with the topic during the period of time, based on the recognized hesitation pattern, calculating a confidence indicator associated with the activity, the confidence indicator specifies a confidence of the user in performing the activity, based on the confidence indicator being lower than a confidence threshold, identifying one or more subject matter experts for the determined topic, and prompting the user to submit a support request to at least one of the identified subject matter experts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (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 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights