Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed in the present case. If applicable, the Examiner respectfully notes Applicant's duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability, as per MPEP §609, and the time limits for such a filing set forth under 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear as it is not readily apparent what the limitation a local signal (first found in S50) fully entails. Is the local signal a point of origin for the water hammer signal, within a specific geographic region, a specific well or well pad, or another unknown idiomatic meaning? Therefore, as it is not readily clear what the limitation fully encompasses for a local signal the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear.
Claim 1 is rejected on this basis
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 contains all the limitations of claim 9 and the limitations of claim 9 appear capable of meeting all the limitations of claim 10. In other words, what does claim 9 allow that claim 10 excludes? What is the scope difference between these claims? Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 towards an abstract idea.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-10 18-20 are directed to a method (process). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
The claim(s) recite(s) abstract limitations including:
Claim 1: converting…wave signal into a complex cepstrum, performing cepstrum analysis; calculating a minimum period…between points; calculating an average velocity…based on time; performing linear trend removal; performing a fourier transform…; extracting a fundamental frequency…; calculating a propagation time…; calculating an extension length…based on the average velocity…and propagation time.
Claim 2: performing a fourier transform/modulo operation/natural logarithm…/inverse fourier transform…; extracting an amplitude….; extracting maximum value points…;
Claim 3: extracting a frequency; identifying a positive pulse region; performing a local extremum search…; calculating time intervals…; averaging the multiple period values…; taking half of the average period
Claim 4: dividing the propagation distance…to calculate the average velocity
Claim 5: identifying a rising segment and a falling segment…; fitting a linear trend…; calculating linear trend coefficients…; subtracting the linear trend…;
Claim 6: performing framing and windowing on the local signal with linear trend removed; performing a fast fourier transform…; taking a modulus of a fast fourier…; taking frequencies and amplitudes…;
Claim 7: performing peak detection on the frequency spectrum…; searching for frequency points…; sorting the frequency points…; extracting…frequency point; selecting the fundamental frequency…;
Claim 8: taking a reciprocal of the response frequency…;
Claim 9: From claim 1 above: converting…wave signal into a complex cepstrum, performing cepstrum analysis; calculating a minimum period…between points; calculating an average velocity…based on time; performing linear trend removal; performing a fourier transform…; extracting a fundamental frequency…; calculating a propagation time…; calculating an extension length…based on the average velocity…and propagation time.
Claim 10 from claim 1 & 9 above: converting…wave signal into a complex cepstrum, performing cepstrum analysis; calculating a minimum period…between points; calculating an average velocity…based on time; performing linear trend removal; performing a fourier transform…; extracting a fundamental frequency…; calculating a propagation time…; calculating an extension length…based on the average velocity…and propagation time.
Claim 18: calculating an extension length…
Claim 19: calculating an extension length…
Claim 20: calculating an extension length…
These limitations, as drafted, are abstract mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 13, 18 recites the additional element of:
Claim 1:
A main fracture in hydraulic fracturing; a wellhead; a bridge plug; a wellbore which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use;
Using a high-frequency pressure gage; which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Acquiring a water hammer wave signal; which is considered an insignificant extra solution activity;
Claim 4:
Obtaining an actual distance from the wellhead to the bridge plug from drilling data as a propagation distance of the water hammer wave; which is considered an insignificant extra solution activity;
Claim 5:
Generating a trend signal having a same length as the local signal; which is considered an insignificant extra solution activity;
Claim 9: Non-transitory computer readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality
Claim 10: computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claim 1:
A main fracture in hydraulic fracturing; a wellhead; a bridge plug; a wellbore merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)).
Using a high-frequency pressure gage; are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Acquiring a water hammer wave signal; step is considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. And buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 4:
Obtaining an actual distance from the wellhead to the bridge plug from drilling data as a propagation distance of the water hammer wave; step is considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. And buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 5:
Generating a trend signal having a same length as the local signal; step is considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9: Non-transitory computer readable storage medium is recited at a high level of generality. Given the generality of the Non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and the type of storage medium these limitations do not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10: computer-readable storage medium is recited at a high level of generality. Given the generality of the computer readable storage medium, and the type of storage medium these limitations do not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics of claims 11-17 further characterize the claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. calculating a fracture length) to an identified problem (i.e. different mathematical operations) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kabannik (US Pub No 20220056793): teaches the following steps from claim 1;
S10: acquiring a water hammer wave signal at a wellhead after pump shutdown during hydraulic fracturing (Kabannik Fig 1; Water hammer signal) using a high-frequency pressure gauge (Kabannik Fig 1; Waterhammer signal “y-axis” measures pressure);
S20: converting the water hammer wave signal into a complex cepstrum and performing cepstrum analysis on the water hammer wave signal (Kabannik Fig 1; Cepstrogram [0004] [0005] cepstrum analysis via algorithm from wellbore pressure);
S30: calculating a minimum period between positive pulse extremum points in a curve of the complex cepstrum and taking half of the minimum period as a time for a water hammer wave to travel from the wellhead to a bridge plug (Kabannik formula 3 [0066] to determine depth of the fracture utilizing velocity and reflection time back to the wellhead [0018] distance to plug to be calculated);
S40: calculating an average velocity of the water hammer wave in a well based on the time for the water hammer wave to travel from the wellhead to the bridge plug and a distance from the wellhead to the bridge plug (Kabannik Formula 4 [0066] determination of the average velocity utilizing time and distance);
Kabannik (US Pub No 20210032978): Teaches various processing methods of water hammer signals. Kabannik teaches tube waves are reflected back to the surface from reflectors (¶44) and the data is processed to determine wave velocity (¶45) and wave travel time (¶45). With that initial data Kabannik discloses various techniques to process the data to better determine the reflectors in the wellbore (Fig 4), starting on ¶91 though ¶102 the data is processed with a removing of various peaks ¶74 to smooth the graph and remove unintended noise boosting in the well. The data is then treated with short term Fourier transformation (Fig 4 ¶75-¶78), which identifies the frequency (¶26) response to the reflectors to determine the depth of a wellbore.
Swan (US Pub No 20220307371) teaches a similar water hammer analysis ¶181-¶190 utilizing linear regression, fourier transformation and frequency modeling to model wellbore geometry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/BLAKE MICHENER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights