13901844 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

Ex Parte Dubost et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 2018

13901844 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/901,844 05/24/2013 48879 7590 12/03/2018 SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence HOUSTON, TX 77042 Francois Dubost UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. IS12.2555-US-NP 1130 EXAMINER HENSON, MISCHITA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/03/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USDocketing@slb.com jalverson@slb.com SMarckesoni@slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCOIS DUBOST, Y ANNICK GUYOMAR, OLIVIER MARCHE, COSAN AYAN, FLORENT D'HALLUIN, and SYLVAIN WLODARCZYK Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 1 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from an Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to patent- ineligible subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is said to be Schlumberger Technology Corporation. Appeal Brief dated December 29, 2016 ("Br."), at 4. Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 The subject matter on appeal is directed to a processor system and methods for fluid coding and hydraulic zone determination. Spec. ,r 4. The Appellants disclose that a "'hydraulic zone' is generally intended to mean a reservoir unit; i.e., a discrete location where fluid is found in a subterranean formation and generally prevented from fluid communication with fluids in other hydraulic zones." Spec. ,r 16. The Appellants disclose that "a 'fluid code' is generally defined to mean a discrete volume of a type of fluid, generally illustrated by a plurality of formation test measurements." Spec. ,r 16. The Appellants disclose that processes for determining the characteristics and locations of underground fluids are conducted for a variety of reasons, such as to determine the amount and composition of certain reservoir fluids. Spec. ,r 2. The Appellants disclose that formation pressure testing is the most common way that characterization processes may be implemented. Spec. ,r 3. Formation pressures along the depth, and the change in pressure over the change in depth, of a wellbore are said to be indicative of the fluid types in the formation. Spec. ,r 3. The Appellants disclose that Generally, static formation pressure tests are conducted at locations along a wellbore and the results are interpreted by a skilled operator, who in tum determines the location and composition of the fluids in the various zones. However, in some cases, the number of formation tests taken and the number of analyses needed may result in interpretation of the data by the operator, or even a team of operators - this can be time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, some of the data points may be reflective of noise or large uncertainty. Spec. ,r 3. The Appellants summarize their invention as follows: [A] series of formation pressure tests may be conducted and the results received into a processing system. The change in pressure over the change in elevation ( depth) may be approximately 2 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 proportional to the density of the fluid in the formation; thus, the slope of a regression between identified fluid codes may be illustrative of the density of the fluid of the fluid code. To determine the regression(s), the processing system may quantify the uncertainty associated with the formation pressure tests, based on one or more of several possible factors. These uncertainty values may then be used to weigh sliding regressions of the measurements. The sliding regressions may be used to filter out "bad" measurements and may be combined, where appropriate, to form the fluid codes. The fluid codes may then be compared to determine whether adjacent fluid codes are located in the same or different hydraulic zones. When the fluid codes are located in the same zone, their intersection location (i.e., fluid boundary or "free water level") may be calculated by extrapolating the regressions beyond the last measurement of the shallower fluid code and the first measurement of the deeper fluid code, until the regression lines intersect. The uncertainties in this location may then be determined. The result may be a comprehensive display of hydraulic zones and fluid codes thereof, including the locations of fluid boundaries within the hydraulic zone, which may then be employed for development and/or reservoir monitoring. Spec. ,r,r 4--5. Appellants' Figure 1, reproduced below, is a flowchart of a method for fluid coding and hydraulic zone determination according to one embodiment of the invention. Spec. ,r 16. 3 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 rÂ· I G~1~j;{u~t~I;~. ~}~Wtrfcf 8 ! GcJ,c!"<."'.TE Ml:A'.WHt:::M!:f,f>$ :: ii,_Â·Â· DETFRMiM': A Q\J~1't ~',(:'::)f-\f. fO;Â·Â· W 4 : \H[ M&)~,SUf-Hl~~t.Nrr i ,- lZ:f! ~ t.~tJI:RJii~Nt EJt'(f)~( ~Â·lAUJtS .AND A- i., .,Â·:Â·.. MC:lifi tKRC~ f"CEÂ·~Â· :sJ~::GH '.)t:: THC : MFl.SUR~~Mt~Nrs Â·: j / iH ~~-~----~J -~---~Â·Â· -~- f GA~fiXtÂ·ci't~~t~;~~~i-;~~jit(~;~\:ir~'tS I /Ji,i:\CE:NT Ft:.Â·U-iD-Â· fYPt=: ~.EG.RE~"'3$JO~JS f;,f~ T[RilNft~ TO ~lf~ Â·!N THE S.~\Mf HYD~AUUC: Z~~}: 1 Â· . m T1'tH;l!~ ;;:; ;;; {{Ai') .. Â· ,JÂ·. Â·.\\itl ~ Mt.~\SU:RE}.:i:EJtrs : . --- -: - ---r--= - - - -- -~~-~---,~~-~~~ .... i _.,, -~Â·~D ~ ................................................................................................ Â·........................................................................ Â· ........... ...... ~ tl1;.Tt-f~M~f.,j.Â£ !ltf~t.if-fÂ£:tH~~JE BEST-f;T ! Rf::<'.Wt:SSlONS i .. t~2 ~ "' .... ...,. .... ..._,._,..._ .............. ,"-.............. .,.,............... ... ...................................... ,"-........... -......... .. ~ GOMt~~~t2 ?\OJJ:.(t~NT JNIE~~M~OlAJ"l~: I B:t~t:rr.rn f.:~GRES~i:fZ)N9 Â·ro {~[Nt0RATE A. Ft U~D TYPC R.EGRf$$K/--Â£ ! na r ~,\Lt'~ii~\;t;~t:~:\~:z~:t:.;;c~r ThÂ£ ! + f '""""""'""""'"-"""'""""""Â·--------<------ { ;~~ATC~ HYDRAUUC 20~t.S t'fJfJÂ·~~}~~NE;D US,!NG TEST ~~E~\UL. TS fROM MtKT}PLE: WfU_S [ FIG.1 Appellants' Figure 1 is a flowchart of a method I for automatic fluid coding and hydraulic zone determination. Independent claims 1 and 19 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. 1. A method for processing formation pressure test data, compnsmg: [ 1] determining, using a processor, a plurality of regressions for measurements of the formation pressure test data; [2] determining that two or more of the plurality of regressions represent a fluid code; 4 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 [3] combining the two or more of the plurality of regressions representing the fluid code to generate a first fluid-type regression; [ 4] combining two or more other ones of the plurality of regressions representing a second fluid code to generate a second fluid-type regression; [5] determining that the first fluid-type regression and the second fluid-type regression are in a first hydraulic zone; [6] calculating a location of a boundary between the first fluid-type regression and the second fluid-type regression by extrapolating the first and second fluid-type regressions to a point of intersection therebetween; and [7] creating a development plan for the formation based at least in part on the calculated location of the boundary. Br. 29 (numbering and emphasis added). 19. A method, comprising: [ 1] conducting formation pressure test by taking a plurality of measurements of formation pressure along a depth of a well bore; [2] calculating a quality score of the plurality of measurements based on one or more criteria related to test conditions; [3] determining, using a processor, a plurality of multi-point sliding regressions of the plurality of measurements, wherein each of the plurality of measurements is included in at least one of the plurality of multi-point sliding regressions; [ 4] filtering out one or more bad measurements based at least partially on a calculated mean error in the plurality of multi-point sliding regressions; [5] selecting a plurality of best-fit regressions from the plurality of sliding regressions, wherein each of the measurements that is not filtered out is included one of the plurality of best-fit regressions; [6] combining adjacent ones of the best-fit regressions based at least partially on slope to generate a plurality of fluid codes; [7] grouping fluid codes into hydraulic zones based at least partially on physical characteristics of the fluids; 5 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 [8] determining a location of a boundary between fluid codes that are grouped into a common hydraulic zone; and [9] creating a development plan for the formation based at least in part on the calculated location of the boundary. Br. 33-34 (numbering and emphasis added). According to the Appellants, reference numeral 122 in Figure 1 (i.e., "DISPLAY RE SUL TS") corresponds to the step of "creating a development plan for the formation based at least in part on the calculated location of the boundary" recited in claims 1 and 19 (i.e., steps [7] and [9], respectively). Br. 6, 8; see also Spec. ,r 40 ( disclosing that the method "may also include graphically displaying a comprehensive report[] of the result, as at 122"); Spec. ,r 5 (disclosing that a comprehensive display of hydraulic zones and fluid codes thereof may be employed for development). Claim 12, the other independent claim on appeal, is directed to a processor system for processing formation pressure test data. Br. 31. B. DISCUSSION In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), the Supreme Court "set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The first step of the analysis is to determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept ( e.g., an abstract idea). Id. ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). The second step is "consider[ing] the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). Step two of the analysis is described as "a search for an 6 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 'inventive concept' -i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). 1. Claims 1-18i According to the Examiner, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final Act. 4. 3 The Examiner explains that the first determining step through the calculating step recited in claim 1 (i.e., steps [1]-[6]) is an abstract idea "because it is similar to at least the court identified concept of a mathematical relationship/formula e.g. the limitations are directed to merely calculating values that represent a location without more." Final Act. 4. The Examiner explains that the additional elements recited in claim 1 (i.e., step [7]) "when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea." Final Act. 4. The Appellants argue that the claims on appeal are analogous to the claims considered in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and thus are not directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "are directed to an improvement over existing computer technologies." Br. 10-11. In particular, the Appellants argue: [P]rior art techniques are time consuming, expensive, and reflective of noise or large uncertainties. See [Spec. ,r,r 3-5]. The disclosed techniques, by contrast, solve these and other problems and provide for a comprehensive display of hydraulic zones, including locations of 2 The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of claims 2-18. Therefore, claims 2-18 stand or fall with the patentability of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). 3 Final Office Action dated August 3, 2016. 7 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 fluid boundaries. See Specification, paragraph 5. Accordingly, by the Enfish reasoning, the claims are not abstract. Br. 11. In Enfish, the Court explained that "the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. In other words, the Court found that the claims at issue "are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate." Id; see also id. at 1339 (stating that "the self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory"). The Appellants argue that, like the claims in Enfish, the improvements of claims 1-18 are defined at least in part by logical structures and processes, as represented, for example, in the limitations directed to generating a first and second "fluid-type regression", "calculating a location of a boundary between the first fluid-type regression and the second fluid- type regression" and "creating a development plan for the formation based at least in part on the calculated location of the boundary". Br. 11-12; see also Br. 12 (arguing that claims 1-18 are "directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts"). The Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. In contrast to the claims in Enfish, the claims on appeal are neither directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor do they implement a solution to a problem in the software arts. See Ans. 3 (explaining that "[t]he claim limitations do not set forth any limitations that modif[y] or change[] how the computer itself 8 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 functions or operates"). 4 Rather, the claims on appeal employ generic computer components to perform conventional steps previously performed manually by an operator. See Spec. ,r 3; see also Br. 12 (contending that the claims on appeal automate a task that was "previously done manually"); see also Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ( computer performed "purely conventional" steps to carry out claims directed to the "abstract idea of determining a price using organization and product group hierarchies"). In other words, claims 1-18 are directed to processing formation pressure test data and merely use generic computer components to improve the performance of manipulating that data-not the performance of the computer itself. Versata, 793 F.3d at 1335. Relying on McRO v. Bandai Namco Games, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Appellants also argue that the claims on appeal "allow for the automation of a task, within the overall claimed method, that was previously done manually; therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea." Br. 12. More specifically, the Appellants argue: In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to automating a process of lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters was not abstract because "the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, ... 'improved [the] existing technological process' by allowing the automation of further tasks." Br. 12 (quotingMcRO, 837 F.3d at 1314) (emphasis added); see also id. at 1315 (explaining that "[t]he claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters" ( emphasis added)). 4 Examiner's Answer dated May 8, 2017. 9 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 The Appellants argue that the "claimed invention[, in this case,] similarly uses rules to enable a computer to automatically execute a process that was previously conducted manually based on subjective interpretations by operators." Br. 12. In particular, the Appellants argue that "the intersection [of the extrapolated first and second fluid-type regressions] is used as a rules-based determination of where the boundaries are located, rather than a subjective interpretation of an operator." Br. 13 (emphasis added). Significantly, the Appellants do not identify any specific rule(s) recited in the claims on appeal. Contra McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (explaining that the rules "define morph weight sets as a function of the timing of phoneme [ or speech sound] sub-sequences" ( emphasis added)). In that regard, the Examiner finds that "the steps of determining regressions, combining regressions and calculating a location of a boundary are directed to a mathematical relationship/formula rather than a set of rules of a particular type that are used or applied by a computer." Ans. 4. The Appellants do not offer a response, and thus, do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's finding. Turning to the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, 5 the Appellants argue that claims 1-18 "recite significantly more than an abstract idea." Br. 13. For support, the Appellants rely on Example 3 from the 2014 IEG (Interim Eligibility Guidance). 6 Claim 1 of Example 3 reads as follows: 7 5 Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). 6 Examples: Abstract Ideas, https ://www. uspto. gov/ sites/ default/files/ documents/ abstract_idea_examples. pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2018) ("Examples"). 7 Hypothetical claim 1 is said to be modeled after the technology in Research Corp. Tech. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Examples 7. 10 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 1. A computer-implemented method for halftoning a gray scale image, comprising the steps of: generating, with a processor, a blue noise mask by encoding changes in pixel values across a plurality of blue noise filtered dot profiles at varying gray levels; storing the blue noise mask in a first memory location; receiving a gray scale image and storing the gray scale image in a second memory location; comparing, with a processor on a pixel-by-pixel basis, each pixel of the gray scale image to a threshold number in the corresponding position of the blue noise mask to produce a binary image array; and converting the binary image array to a halftoned image. Examples 7-8 ( emphasis added). The Appellants direct our attention to the following explanation in Example 3: The claim, when taken as a whole, does not simply describe the generation of a blue noise mask via a mathematical operation and receiving and storing data, but combines the steps of generating a blue noise mask with the steps for comparing the image to the blue noise mask and converting the resulting binary image array to a halftoned image. By this, the claim goes beyond the mere concept of simply retrieving and combining data using a computer. Br. 14 ( emphasis added). The Appellants argue: Like the Example 3 claim 1, independent claims 1 and 12, when taken as a whole, do not simply describe determining a plurality of regressions for measurements of formation pressure test data and determining fluid-type regressions, but combine the steps for determining fluid-type regressions with the steps for calculating a location of a boundary, and creating a development plan for the formation based at least in part on the location of the boundary. By 11 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 this, the claims go beyond the mere concept of simply calculating data using a computer. Br. 14 ( emphasis added). The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As discussed above, the determining, combining, and calculating steps recited in claim 1 are disclosed as being conventional steps performed using generic computer components. See Spec. ,r,r 3, 41--46. The step of "creating a development plan for the formation based at least in part on the calculated location of the boundary" amounts to nothing more than displaying the results obtained from the previous steps. See Br. 6, 7 (citing Spec. ,r,r 2, 5, 40; Fig. 1, reference numeral 122); Spec. ,r 40 ("the method 100 may also include graphically displaying a comprehensive report 600 of the result, as at 122"); Fig. 1 (identifying reference numeral 122 as "DISPLAY RE SUL TS"). Thus, the combination of the "creating" step with the remaining steps recited in claim 1 (i.e., determining, combining, and calculating) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more ... , is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"). The Appellants also argue that the claimed process, like claim 1 in Example 3, "improves the functioning of the computer itself." Br. 14. More specifically, the Appellants argue that [T]he claimed process with the improved steps allows the computer to overcome the prior art problems of being time-consuming, expensive, and inaccurate. See Specification, paragraphs 3-5. These are also improvements to the technology of processing formation pressure test data, or, more broadly, geological testing. Br. 15. 12 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 This argument also is not persuasive of reversible error. As discussed above, the claims on appeal employ generic computer components to perform conventional steps previously performed manually by an operator, not a computer. See Spec. ,r 3; Br. 12. Thus, any improvement exists in the manipulation of the data using a computer, not in the functioning of the computer used to manipulate that data. As explained in Example 3: Merely using generic computer components to perform ... basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception [ e.g., the abstract idea] does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even though such operations could be performed faster than without a computer. Examples 9; see also Ans. 5. Moreover, it is not clear on this record how the claimed process improves geological testing. Once a development plan is created (i.e., the results are displayed), 8 no further action is recited in claim 1. Next, the Appellants argue that claims 1-18 are analogous to Example 25 from the 2015 IEG Update. 9 Br. 15. Claim 1 of Example 25 reads as follows: 10 1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising: providing said computer with a data base for said press including at least, natural logarithm conversion data (ln), the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound 8 See Fig. 1, reference numeral 122 ("DISPLAY RESULTS"). 9 July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-app 1.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2018) ("Updated Examples"). 10 Hypothetical claim 1 is said to be modeled after the technology in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Updated Examples 14. 13 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 being molded, and a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press, initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure, constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding, constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z), repetitively calculating in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is ln v = CZ +x, where v is the total required cure time, repetitively comparing in the computer at said frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence. Updated Examples 15-16. The Appellants argue that "both claims 1-18 and the Example 25 claims recite limitations that amount to significantly more than a mere mathematical relationship." Br. 18-19. More specifically, the Appellants argue that "claims 1 and 12 recite mathematical content not in isolation, but rather integrate this material into a technique for using processed formation pressure test data to create a development plan for a geological formation." Br. 18. The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. "[T]he claimed steps [ recited in claim 1 of Example 25] taken as a combination effect a transformation of the raw, uncured synthetic rubber into a different state or thing, i.e., a cured and molded rubber product." Updated Examples 18 ( emphasis added). In contrast, the Examiner explains that "the creation of a development plan for the formation based at least in part on the calculated location of the boundary [ recited 14 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 in claim 1 on appeal] does not result in the transformation of an article into a different state or thing." Ans. 6. Rather, as discussed above, the "creating" step recited in claim 1 (i.e., step [7]) amounts to nothing more than displaying the results obtained from the previous steps. 11 See Br. 6, 7 (citing Spec. ,r,r 2, 5, 40; Fig. 1, reference numeral 122); Spec. ,r 40 ("the method 100 may also include graphically displaying a comprehensive report 600 of the result, as at 122"); Fig. 1 (identifying reference numeral 122 as "DISPLAY RESULTS"). The Appellants also argue that the claimed process "improve[ s] another technical field, specifically, the field of geological testing" similar to the process in claim 1 of Example 25, which is said to improve the field of precision rubber molding. Br. 18; Updated Examples 18. However, as explained above, once a development plan is created (i.e., the results are displayed), 12 no further action is recited in claim 1. Thus, in the words of the Examiner, "the claims are directed to a mathematical relationship and formula or an improved method of calculating, without significantly more." Ans. 6. 11 Notably, the Appellants disclose that a comprehensive display of hydraulic zones and fluid codes thereof may be employed for development. Spec. ,r 5. The Specification, however, does not describe such "development" or a "development plan" in any detail. Thus, to the extent that the step of "creating a development plan" (i.e., step [7]) means something more than displaying the results calculated in step [6], we understand the "creating" step to describe applying those results in an unidentified manner, which, on this record, does not amount to the transformation of an article into a different state or thing. Cf Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (adding the words "'apply it'" to an abstract idea is not enough for patent eligibility) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72)). 12 See Fig. 1, reference numeral 122 ("DISPLAY RESULTS"). 15 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 For the reasons set forth above, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Therefore, the rejection is sustained. b. Claims 19 and 2011 According to the Examiner, the calculating step through the last determining step recited in claim 19 (i.e., steps [2]-[8]) is an abstract idea "because it is similar to at least the court identified concept of a mathematical relationship/formula e.g. the limitations are directed to merely calculating values that represent a location without more." Final Act. 6. The Examiner explains that: The claim[] does[] not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the [ abstract idea] because the additional element of "conducti[ ng] formation pressure test ... along a depth of a wellbore" amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without more. Further, the additional element of "creating a development plan for the formation based [at] least in part on the calculated location of the boundary" is an insignificant extrasolution activity. Final Act. 6-7 ( emphasis added). In response to the rejection of claims 19 and 20, the Appellants rely on Enfish, Example 3 from the 2014 IEG, and Example 25 from the 2015 IEG Update for substantially the same reasons presented in response to the rejection of claims 1-18. See Br. 19-26; Ans. 8-9. For the reasons discussed above, however, the Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. 13 The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 stands or falls with the patentability of claim 19. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). 16 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 The Appellants also argue that claims 19 and 20 recite pre-solution activity analogous to the post-solution activity of In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982), and thus are patent eligible. 14 Br. 26. In Abele, the Court explained: The method of claim 6 ... requires "X-ray attenuation data." The specification indicates that such attenuation data is available only when an X-ray beam is produced by a CAT scanner, passed through an object, and detected upon its exit. Only after these steps have been completed is the algorithm performed, and the resultant modified data displayed in the required format. Were we to view the claim absent the algorithm, the production, detection and display steps would still be present and would result in a conventional CAT-scan process. Accordingly, production and detection cannot be considered mere antecedent steps to obtain values for solving the algorithm .... Indeed, claim 6 presents data gathering steps not dictated by the algorithm but by other limitations which require certain antecedent steps. It is these antecedent steps that dictate what type of data must be obtained. Abele, 684 F.2d at 908 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). The Appellants argue that claim 19 on appeal similarly "recites data gathering steps that are not dictated by any recited algorithm." Br. 27. The data gathering step in claim 19 is "conducting formation pressure test by taking a plurality of measurements of formation pressure along a depth of a wellbore" (i.e., step [1]). Br. 33. The remaining steps in claim 19 are calculating or manipulating steps involving that data (i.e., abstract idea steps [2]-[8]), followed by displaying the results (i.e., step [9]). See Final Act. 6 ( explaining that the remaining steps recited in claim 19 "are directed to merely calculating values that represent a location without more"). Thus, the issue raised by the Appellants' 14 Notably, In re Abele was decided before the Supreme Court's decisions in Mayo and Alice. 17 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 argument is whether the data gathering step recited in claim 19 "is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [abstract idea (i.e., steps [2]-[8])] itself.'" Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). The Examiner finds, and the Appellants' do not dispute, that "the acquisition of Appellant's formation pressure test data is achieved via any well-known technique or method for obtaining said data." Ans. 10 ( citing Spec. ,r 3). Indeed, the Appellants disclose that "[fJormation pressure testing is the most common way in which such characterization processes [(i.e., processes for determining the characteristics and locations of underground fluids (Spec. ,r 2))] may be implemented." Spec. ,r 3. Significantly, the Appellants do not direct us to any evidence establishing that "conducting formation pressure test by taking a plurality of measurements of formation pressure along a depth of a wellbore" 15 was not a well-understood, routine, or conventional method for conducting formation pressure testing at the time of the Appellants' invention. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the step of conducting formation pressure testing (i.e., step [ 1]) describes a conventional activity and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified by the Examiner (i.e., steps [2]-[8]). See OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that "well-understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities ... do not make the claims patent eligible"); Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79 ("Purely 'conventional or obvious' '[pre]-solution activity' is normally not sufficient to transform an 15 Br. 33 ( emphasis added). 18 Appeal2017-010254 Application 13/901,844 unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law." (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978))). For the reasons set forth above, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Therefore, the rejection is sustained. C. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l ). AFFIRMED 19