Ex Parte Fung et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2019

14171815 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/171,815
35979 7590
Bracewell LLP
P.O. Box 61389
FILING DATE
02/04/2014
05/01/2019
Houston, TX 77208-1389
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Larry Siu-Kuen Fung
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.
0004159.005125 1065
EXAMINER
HANN,JAYB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 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):
docketing@bracewell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARRY SIU-KUEN FUNG and XIANG YANG DING
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-17, 19--29, 31-35, and 40--43. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Saudi Arabian Oil
Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention involves computerized simulation of
hydrocarbon reservoirs, specifically, simulating multiphase multicomponent
flow and transport processes involving complex well geometry. To this end,
the invention includes a near-well unstructured model builder that can output
a near-well unstructured grid with a specified grid resolution in regions of
interest that include a well. See generally Abstract; Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a near-
well unstructured grid, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, input data, the
input data comprising:
a structured geocellular model having a well or a
structured reservoir simulation model having a well; and
well trajectory data and completion data for the
well;
determining, by one or more processors, a field polygon
based on the input data;
determining, by one or more processors, a reservoir
polygon having a region of interest containing the well;
generating, by one or more processors, a plurality of grid
points, the plurality of grid points comprising:
a plurality of field grid points based on a user-
specified field grid size; and
a plurality of reservoir grid points based on a user-
specified reservoir grid size for each reservoir;
a plurality of well grid points based on a well grid
size; and
a plurality of near-well bore grid points on both
sides of each of the plurality of well grid points based on
the well grid size;
2
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
performing conflicting point removal and point
adjustments to generate a plurality of final grid points based on
a point prioritization of weights assigned to the plurality of grid
points;
performing, by one or more processors, a Delaunay
triangulation based on the plurality of final grid points;
generating, by one or more processors, a V oronoi grid
based on the Delaunay triangulation;
generating, by one or more processors, a near-well
unstructured grid based on the V oronoi grid, the generating
compnsmg:
generating a geometry of the near-well
unstructured grid, wherein generating the geometry of the
near-well unstructured grid comprises generating a 2.5D
unstructured grid geometry;
generating properties of the near-well unstructured
grid; and
generating perforation of the near-well
unstructured grid; and
providing, by one or more processors, the near-well
unstructured grid to a parallel reservoir simulator.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6-17, 19--29, 31-35, and 40--43
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea. Final Act. 5-11. 2
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
September 22, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 22,
2018 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 19, 2018
("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed June 19, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea, namely solving mathematical models whose (1) information is
organized through mathematical correlations, and (2) techniques are
mathematical algorithms. Final Act. 5. The Examiner adds that the claims
do not include elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea,
but merely recite, among other things, generic computer components and
insignificant extra-solution activity. Id.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea. App. Br. 9-17; Reply Br. 2-7. According to Appellants, the
claimed invention improves computer-related technology, namely predicting
performance for wells in hydrocarbon reservoirs, particularly wells with
multiple branches and complex geometries. App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 4--7.
Appellants add that the claimed invention not only recites a particular
solution to this problem, but also a particular way of generating a near-well
unstructured grid using different grid sizes that, among other things,
removes conflicting points and adjusts points to generate final grid points
based on a point prioritization of weights assigned to the grid points. App.
Br. 12-15.
ISSUE
Under§ 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-17,
19-29, 31-35, and 40--43 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue
turns on whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so,
whether recited elements----considered individually and as an ordered
4
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
combination-transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible
application of that abstract idea.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "'[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas"' are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S.
208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 );
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes ( Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
5
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 183 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). That
said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks and citation
omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional
features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
6
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan.
2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
7
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19--29, and 31-35: Alice/Mayo Step One
Independent claim 1 recites
[ a] computer-implemented method for generating a near-
well unstructured grid, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, input data, the
input data comprising: a structured geocellular model having a
well or a structured reservoir simulation model having a well;
and well trajectory data and completion data for the well;
determining, by one or more processors, a field polygon
based on the input data;
determining, by one or more processors, a reservoir
polygon having a region of interest containing the well;
generating, by one or more processors, a plurality of grid
points, the plurality of grid points comprising:
a plurality of field grid points based on a user-specified
field grid size; and
a plurality of reservoir grid points based on a user-
specified reservoir grid size for each reservoir;
a plurality of well grid points based on a well grid size;
and
a plurality of near-well bore grid points on both sides of
each of the plurality of well grid points based on the well grid
size;
peiforming conflicting point removal and point
adjustments to generate a plurality of final grid points based on
a point prioritization of weights assigned to the plurality of grid
points;
peiforming, by one or more processors, a Delaunay
triangulation based on the plurality of final grid points;
generating, by one or more processors, a Voronoi grid
based on the Delaunay triangulation;
generating, by one or more processors, a near-well
unstructured grid based on the Voronoi grid, the generating
comprising:
generating a geometry of the near-well unstructured
grid, wherein generating the geometry of the near-well
8
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
unstructured grid comprises generating a 2.5D unstructured
grid geometry;
generating properties of the near-well unstructured grid;
and
generating perforation of the near-well unstructured
grid; and
providing, by one or more processors, the near-well
unstructured grid to a parallel reservoir simulator. [3]
As the Specification's paragraph two explains, Appellants' invention
involves computerized simulation of hydrocarbon reservoirs, specifically,
simulating multiphase multicomponent flow and transport processes
involving complex well geometry, such as complex maximum reservoirs
contact (MRC) wells, that can be densely populated in the reservoirs. To
this end, the invention uses a near-well unstructured grid model builder 110
whose inputs may include (1) existing well trajectory and completion data
102; (2) future well data 104; (3) a geological model 106; and (4) a
structured grid simulation model 108. Spec. ,r,r 27, 32-33; Fig. 1.
A key aspect of the grid model builder is constructing an unstructured
grid based on data and gridding options via a workflow interface. Spec.
,r 29. To this end, grid points are generated and optimized, and well grid
points computed and weighted. Id. The grid model builder then triangulates
the grid points, and generates a Voronoi grid by bisecting the triangle edges
perpendicularly. Id. An unstructured grid geometry, along with its
associated properties and perforation, is then built to enable viewing and
evaluation via the workflow interface. Id. ,r,r 29-30.
3 Unless otherwise indicated, we italicize or quote text associated with
various recited limitations for emphasis and clarity.
9
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Turning to claim 1, we first note that the claim recites a method and,
therefore, falls within the process category of§ 101. But despite falling
within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is
directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217. To this end, we must determine whether (1) the claim recites a
judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea, namely solving mathematical models whose (1) information is
organized through mathematical correlations, and (2) techniques are
mathematical algorithms. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3---6. To determine whether a
claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify the claim's specific limitations
that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the identified
limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely (a)
mathematical concepts4; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity5;
4 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
10
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
or ( c) mental processes. 6
Here, apart from the recited (1) computer-implemented method;
(2) performing various steps "by one or more processors"; 7 and (3)
''providing ... the near-well unstructured grid to a parallel reservoir
simulator," all of claim 1 's recited limitations, which collectively are
directed to generating a near-well unstructured grid by generating and
prioritizing grid points, fit squarely within at least one of the above
categories of the agency's guidelines.
First, the step reciting "receiving ... input data ... comprising[] a
structured geocellular model having a well or a structured reservoir
simulation model having a well; and well trajectory data and completion
data for the well" involves at least personal interactions, including following
rules or instructions, at least to the extent that a person could receive such
input data by merely reading pertinent records or other associated
information, or alternatively receive that information via face-to-face or
written communication with another person with such knowledge, such as a
colleague. Cf CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that limitation reciting obtaining information
about transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit
card transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of
Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database); see also In re
6 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
7 Notably, except for the step reciting ''performing conflicting point removal
and point adjustments . .. ," all of claim 1 's steps are performed by one or
more processors.
11
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Salwan, 681 F. App'x 938, 939-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding
ineligible claims reciting, among other things, receiving medical records
information and transmitting reports where the claimed invention's objective
was to enable electronic communication of tasks that were otherwise done
manually using paper, phone, and facsimile machine); Interval Licensing
LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that
nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in a
meeting or conversation as illustrating the invention's focus, namely
providing information to a person without interfering with the person's
primary activity); LendingTree, 656 F. App'x at 993-94, 996 (holding
ineligible claims reciting, among other things, (1) receiving selection criteria
from lending institutions and credit data from a computer user, and (2)
forwarding the credit data to selected lending institutions as directed to an
abstract idea). Therefore, the receiving step falls squarely within the mental
processes and methods of organizing human activity category of the
agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity,
including personal interactions and following rules or instructions); see also
id. (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and
evaluation).
Second, "determining ... a field polygon based on the input data;
[and] ... a reservoir polygon having a region of interest containing the
well" can not only be done entirely mentally by merely thinking about these
polygons or writing them down, but this determination also involves
mathematical relationships, formulas, or equations associated with the
polygons' particular geometrical representations. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d
12
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
at 1372-73 (noting that a recited step that constructed a map of credit card
numbers could be performed by merely writing down a list of credit card
transactions made from a particular IP address.); see also In re Grams, 888
F.2d 835, 837 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("Words used in a claim operating on
data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."); Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(noting that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds,
or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially mental
processes within the abstract idea category); Digitech Image Tech., LLC v.
Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
("Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical
algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional
information is not patent eligible."); Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (holding ineligible
claims involving a mathematical algorithm and directed to converting
binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals for use
with a computer). Accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("That purely
mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer,
was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in [Benson]."). Therefore,
the recited reservoir and field polygon determinations fall squarely within
the mental processes and mathematical concepts categories of the agency's
guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52.
Third,
generating ... a plurality of grid points ... comprising:
[(])] a plurality of field grid points based on a user-specified
field grid size; [(2)] a plurality of reservoir grid points based
on a user-specified reservoir grid size for each reservoir; [(3)]
13
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
a plurality of well grid points based on a well grid size; and
[(4)] a plurality of near-well bore grid points on both sides of
each of the plurality of well grid points based on the well grid
size
can be done entirely mentally by merely thinking about these particular grid
points or writing them down. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (noting
that a recited step that constructed a map of credit card numbers could be
performed by merely writing down a list of credit card transactions made
from a particular IP address). In addition, this grid point generation also
involves mathematical relationships, formulas, or equations associated with
the points' particular geometrical representation and relationship to the
region of interest. See Grams, 888 F.2d at 837 n.1 ("Words used in a claim
operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a
formula."); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (noting that analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes within the
abstract idea category); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 ("Without additional
limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information is not patent
eligible."); Benson, 409 U.S. at 63 (holding ineligible claims involving a
mathematical algorithm and directed to converting binary-coded-decimal
(BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals for use with a computer).
Accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("That purely mental processes can
be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in [Benson]."). Therefore, the recited grid
point generation falls squarely within the mental processes and mathematical
14
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
concepts categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recite an
abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Fourth, ''performing conflicting point removal and point adjustments
to generate a plurality of final grid points based on a point prioritization of
weights assigned to the plurality of grid points" can not only be done
entirely mentally by merely thinking about these deletions and adjustments
and resulting priority-based grid points or writing them down, but this step
also involves associated mathematical relationships, formulas, or equations,
not only with respect to a particular grid-point geometry, but the particular
numerical values assigned to the points that reflect their relative weighting
and priority. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (noting that a recited
step that constructed a map of credit card numbers could be performed by
merely writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular
IP address.); see also Grams, 888 F.2d at 837 n.1 ("Words used in a claim
operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a
formula."); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (noting that analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes within the
abstract idea category); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 ("Without additional
limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information is not patent
eligible."); Benson, 409 U.S. at 63 (holding ineligible claims involving a
mathematical algorithm and directed to converting binary-coded-decimal
(BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals for use with a computer).
Accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("That purely mental processes can
be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
15
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
holding of the Supreme Court in [Benson]."). Therefore, the recited
conflicting point removal and point adjustments to generate final grid points
based on a point prioritization of assigned weights falls squarely within the
mental processes and mathematical concepts categories of the agency's
guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52.
Fifth,
generating ... [(])] a Voronoi grid based on the Delaunay
triangulation; and [(2)] a near-well unstructured grid based on
the Voronoi grid, the [near-well unstructured grid] generating
comprising: generating [(a)] a geometry of the near-well
unstructured grid ... compris[ing] generating a 2.5D
unstructured grid geometry; [ (b)] properties of the near-well
unstructured grid; and [(c)] perforation of the near-well
unstructured grid
can not only be done entirely mentally by merely thinking about these
operations, resulting grids, and associated geometries or writing them down,
but this step also involves mathematical relationships, formulas, or
equations, at least with respect to particular grid-point geometries and
associated properties and perforations. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-
73 (noting that a recited step that constructed a map of credit card numbers
could be performed by merely writing down a list of credit card transactions
made from a particular IP address); see also Grams, 888 F.2d at 837 n.1
("Words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the
same purpose as a formula."); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (noting that
analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes
within the abstract idea category); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 ("Without
16
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to
manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not
patent eligible."); Benson, 409 U.S. at 63 (holding ineligible claims
involving a mathematical algorithm and directed to converting binary-
coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals for use with a
computer). Accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in [Benson]."). Therefore, the
recited triangulation and grid and associated geometry generation steps fall
squarely within the mental processes and mathematical concepts categories
of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these methods of
organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts, we
nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into
a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses
the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract
idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. To this
end, we ( 1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements
beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and
collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application. See id.
Here, the recited (1) computer-implemented method; (2) performing
various steps "by one or more processors"; and (3) ''providing ... the near-
well unstructured grid to a parallel reservoir simulator" are the only recited
17
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
elements beyond the abstract idea, but those additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 1
as a whole. First, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention improves
a computer or its components' functionality or efficiency, or otherwise
changes the way those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated
by the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App.
Br. 10-11). The claimed self-referential table in Enfzsh was a specific type
of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and
retrieves data in memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent
Appellants contend that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to
improve a computer's functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the
way that device functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to
substantiate such a contention.
To the extent that Appellants contend that the claimed invention is
rooted in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution
(see App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 4--7), we disagree. Even assuming, without
deciding, that claimed invention can generate a near-well unstructured grid
by generating and prioritizing grid points faster than doing so manually, any
speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic computer
components-not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v.
Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp
Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter.")); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
18
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Indemnity Co., 711 F. App'x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished)
("Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files
and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases
stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer 'do[
] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter."').
Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an
improvement in computer processors as tools, but on certain independently
abstract ideas that use generic computing components as tools. See
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Nor is this invention analogous to that which the court held eligible in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016). There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules
that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a
sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315.
Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using
particular information and techniques-an improvement over manual three-
dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 1316.
But unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the
physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed
invention here merely uses generic computing components to validate and
authenticate a payment-based transaction between parties. This generic
computer implementation is not only directed to fundamental human activity
organization, mathematical concepts, and mental processes, but also does
not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am.,
19
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing
McRO).
Nor is this a case involving eligible subject matter as in DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There,
instead of a computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by
sending a website visitor to a third-party website apparently connected with
a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in DDR generated and
directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented ( 1) product information
from the third party, and (2) visual "'look and feel"' elements from the host
website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. Given that particular Internet-based
solution, the court held that the claimed invention did not merely use the
Internet to perform a business practice known from the pre-Internet world,
but rather was necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a
problem specifically arising in computer networks. Id. at 1257.
That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellants' claimed
invention, in essence, is directed to mental and mathematical processes to
generate a near-well unstructured grid by generating and prioritizing grid
points-albeit by using computer-based components to achieve that end.
The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology
in the sense contemplated by DDR where the claimed invention solved a
challenge particular to the Internet. Although Appellants' invention uses
various computer-based components, the claimed invention does not solve a
challenge particular to the computing components used to implement this
functionality.
Accordingly, we do not find that the claim recites additional elements
improving (1) the computer itself, or (2) another technology or technical
20
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely ( 1) apply the abstract
idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea
on a computer; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(±)). Cf TDE
Petroleum Data Sol., Inc. v. AKM Enter., Inc., 657 F. App'x 991, 992-94
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting
automatically selecting a well operation state upon determining validity of at
least some mechanical and hydraulic data received from associated systems
as directed to the abstract idea of storing, gathering, and analyzing data).
We add that the limitation reciting "receiving ... input data ...
comprising[] a structured geocellular model having a well or a structured
reservoir simulation model having a well; and well trajectory data and
completion data for the well" not only organizes human activity and uses
generic computing components to perform the abstract idea as noted above,
but this receiving function is also insignificant pre-solution activity that
merely gathers data and, therefore, does not integrate the exception into a
practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F .3d
943,963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), ajf'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593
(2010) ( characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution
activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if
some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database ( e.g.,
entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps
cannot alone confer patentability). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
21
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
In addition, ''providing ... the near-well unstructured grid to a
parallel reservoir simulator" in claim 1 's last clause is insignificant post-
solution activity, at least in the sense that it is merely ancillary to the focus
of the claimed invention, namely generating a near-well unstructured grid by
generating and prioritizing grid points, given the near-well providing
function's high level of generality and context in the claimed invention.
Where, as here, the recited near-well unstructured grid providing function is
merely ancillary to the grid generation focus of the claimed invention, given
its high level of generality and context in the claimed invention, the recited
providing function is insignificant post-solution activity and, therefore, does
not integrate the exception into a practical application for this additional
reason. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claims do
not preempt the alleged abstract idea. App. Br. 16. Where, as here, the
claims cover a patent-ineligible concept, preemption concerns "are fully
addressed and made moot" by an analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework.
See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
In conclusion, although the recited functions may be beneficial by
generating a near-well unstructured grid by generating and prioritizing grid
points, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
See id. at 1379--80.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
22
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-29, and 31-35: Alice/Mayo Step Two
Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim 1 's additional recited elements,
namely the recited (1) computer-implemented method; (2) performing
various steps "by one or more processors"; and (3) ''providing . .. the near-
well unstructured grid to a parallel reservoir simulator"----considered
individually and as an ordered combination----do not provide an inventive
concept such that these additional elements amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 56. As noted above, the claimed invention merely uses generic
computing components to implement the recited abstract idea.
To the extent that Appellants contend that the recited limitations,
including (1) "receiving ... input data ... comprising[] a structured
geocellular model having a well or a structured reservoir simulation model
having a well; and well trajectory data and completion data for the well";
(2) "determining . .. afield polygon based on the input data; [and] . .. a
reservoir polygon having a region of interest containing the well"; (3)
generating . .. a plurality of grid points . .. comprising: [(a)] a
plurality of field grid points based on a user-specified field grid
size; [(b)J a plurality of reservoir grid points based on a user-
specified reservoir grid size for each reservoir; [(c)] a plurality
of well grid points based on a well grid size; and [(d)J a
plurality of near-well bore grid points on both sides of each of
the plurality of well grid points based on the well grid size;
( 4) ''performing conflicting point removal and point adjustments to generate
a plurality of final grid points based on a point prioritization of weights
assigned to the plurality of grid points"; (5)
generating ... [(a)] a Voronoi grid based on the Delaunay
triangulation; and [(b)J a near-well unstructured grid based on
23
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
the Voronoi grid, the [near-well unstructured grid] generating
comprising: generating [(i)J a geometry of the near-well
unstructured grid ... compris[ing] generating a 2.5D
unstructured grid geometry; [(ii)] properties of the near-well
unstructured grid; and [(iii)] peiforation of the near-well
unstructured grid
add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept
under Alice/Mayo step two (see App. Br. 17-19), these limitations are not
additional elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather are directed to the
abstract idea as noted previously. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56
(instructing that additional recited elements should be evaluated in
Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1) add specific limitations
that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, or (2)
simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Rather, the recited (1) computer-implemented method; (2) performing
various steps "by one or more processors"; and (3) ''providing ... the near-
well unstructured grid to a parallel reservoir simulator" are the additional
recited elements whose generic computing functionality is well-understood,
routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1368
(noting that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a user identity),
database, and communication medium are generic computer elements);
Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an "interface,"
"network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not
satisfy the inventive concept requirement); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends
24
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even
arguably inventive."). Accord Final Act. 7 (concluding that the claims'
additional generic computer components do not add significantly more than
the abstract idea.); see also Spec. ,r,r 34 ( describing a known parallel
reservoir simulator), 86-99 (describing generic computer components
associated with the disclosed invention).
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the recited insignificant
extra-solution activity, namely (1) "receiving ... input data ...
comprising[] a structured geocellular model having a well or a structured
reservoir simulation model having a well; and well trajectory data and
completion data for the well"; and (2) ''providing . .. the near-well
unstructured grid to a parallel reservoir simulator." That (1) input data is
received comprising the recited models, and (2) a near-well unstructured
grid is provided to a parallel reservoir simulator does not mean that these
steps are performed in an unconventional way to add significantly more than
the abstract idea and provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step
two. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Given these limitations' (1) high
level of generality, and (2) use of generic computing components whose
functionality is well-understood, routine, and conventional for the reasons
noted previously, the recited extra-solution activity does not add
significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept
under Alice/Mayo step two. To the extent Appellants contend otherwise (see
App. Br. 17-19), we disagree.
Appellants' reliance on BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 18) is
unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed to a technology-
25
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
based solution to filter Internet content that overcame existing problems with
other Internet filtering systems by making a known filtering solution-
namely a "one-size-fits-all" filter at an Internet Service Provider (ISP}-
more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at the ISP.
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering solution
improved the computer system's performance and, therefore, was patent-
eligible. See id. But unlike the filtering system improvements in BASCOM
that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the claimed
invention here uses generic computing components to implement an abstract
idea as noted previously.
In conclusion, the additional recited elements----considered
individually and as an ordered combination----do not add significantly more
than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step
two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2--4, 6-17, 19-29, and 31-35 not argued separately with
particularity.
Claims 4rJ--43: Alice/Mayo Step One
Independent claim 40 recites:
a computer-implemented method for constructing an
unstructured grid, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a structured grid
having a first plurality of grid points and a well of a reservoir;
determining, by one or more processors, a region of
interest in the structured grid;
generating, by one or more processors, a second
plurality of grid points in the region of interest according to a
first grid size, wherein generating the second plurality of grid
26
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
points comprises generating a plurality of multi-level quad-tree
local grid refinement (LGR) grid points based on a user-
specified number of levels and user specified near-well
distances;
generating, by one or more processors, a third plurality
of grid points outside of the region of interest according to a
second grid size;
constructing, by one or more processors, a 2.5D
unstructured grid from the second plurality of grid points and
the third plurality of grid points; and
processing, by one or more processors, the 2.5D
unstructured grid via a reservoir simulator to produce a
simulation of the reservoir.
As the Specification's paragraph 46 explains, a key aspect of the
invention is using full-field unstructured gridding to generate an
unstructured grid. This gridding can include ( 1) generating field grid points
having a field grid size a first weighting; (2) generating reservoir grid points
having a reservoir grid size and a second weighting; (3) generating well grid
points having a well grid size and a third weighting; (4) performing a multi-
level quad tree LGR in the near-well regions inside the reservoir polygon;
( 5) removing grid points using the assigned weightings; ( 6) performing an
unconstrained Delaunay triangulation; (7) generating a V oroni grid via
perpendicular bisection of the external boundary of the field domain; (8)
detecting and removing degenerate edges of the Voroni grid; and (9)
building a 3D volume using the 2.5D unstructured grid geometry. Spec.
As the Specification's paragraph 47 explains, grid points within the
regions of interest may be generated based on a cell center point of a
structured geological model or structured grid simulation model or based on
a user specific grid size for the regions of interest. For grid points outside
27
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
the region of interest, the grid points may be generated based on a user-
specified background grid size. Spec. ,r 4 7. Weights can also be assigned to
the grid points to adjust or remove conflicting grid points. Id. In addition,
multi-level quad tree LGR can be applied in the near-well regions inside a
reservoir polygon to create smooth transitions from high-resolution well
grids to reservoir grids. Id.
Turning to claim 40, we first note that the claim recites a method and,
therefore, falls within the process category of§ 101. But despite falling
within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is
directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 21 7. To this end, we must determine whether (1) the claim recites a
judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 40 is directed to
an abstract idea, namely solving mathematical models whose (1) information
is organized through mathematical correlations, and (2) techniques are
mathematical algorithms. Final Act. 5, 8-9; Ans. 3---6. To determine
whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify the claim's specific
limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the
identified limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely (a)
mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity; or
( c) mental processes. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Here, apart from the recited (1) computer-implemented method; (2)
performing the steps "by one or more processors"; and (3) processing the
28
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
2.5D unstructured grid "via a reservoir simulator," all of claim 40's
limitations, which collectively are directed to constructing an unstructured
grid from grid points generated within and outside a region of interest, fit
squarely within at least one of the above categories of the agency's
guidelines.
First, the step reciting "receiving ... a structured grid having a first
plurality of grid points and a well of a reservoir" involves at least personal
interactions, including following rules or instructions, at least to the extent
that a person could receive such data by merely reading pertinent records or
other associated information, or alternatively receive that information via
face-to-face or written communication with another person with such
knowledge, such as a colleague. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting
that limitation reciting obtaining information about transactions that have
used an Internet address identified with a credit card transaction can be
performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet credit card
transactions from a pre-existing database); see Salwan, 681 F. App 'x at 939-
41 (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, receiving medical
records information and transmitting reports where the claimed invention's
objective was to enable electronic communication of tasks that were
otherwise done manually using paper, phone, and facsimile machine);
Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344 (noting that nontechnical human
activity of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as
illustrating the invention's focus, namely providing information to a person
without interfering with the person's primary activity); LendingTree, 656 F.
App 'x at 993-94, 996 (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other
things, (1) receiving selection criteria from lending institutions and credit
29
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
data from a computer user, and (2) forwarding the credit data to selected
lending institutions as directed to an abstract idea). Therefore, the receiving
step falls squarely within the mental processes and methods of organizing
human activity category of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an
abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods
of organizing human activity, including personal interactions and following
rules or instructions); see also id. (listing exemplary mental processes
including observation and evaluation).
Second, "determining ... a region of interest in the structured grid"
can not only be done entirely mentally by merely thinking about this region
or writing it down, but this determination also involves mathematical
relationships, formulas, or equations associated with the region's particular
geometrical representation. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (noting
that a recited step that constructed a map of credit card numbers could be
performed by merely writing down a list of credit card transactions made
from a particular IP address); see also Grams, 888 F.2d at 837 n.1 ("Words
used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same
purpose as a formula."); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (noting that
analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes
within the abstract idea category); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 ("Without
additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to
manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not
patent eligible."); Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (holding ineligible claims involving a
mathematical algorithm and directed to converting binary-coded-decimal
(BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals for use with a computer.).
30
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("That purely mental processes can
be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in [Benson]."). Therefore, the recited region
of interest determination falls squarely within the mental processes and
mathematical concepts categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore,
recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Third, (1)
generating ... a second plurality of grid points in the region of
interest according to a first grid size, wherein generating the
second plurality of grid points comprises generating a plurality
of multi-level quad-tree local grid refinement (LGR) grid points
based on a user-specified number of levels and user specified
near-well distances;
(2) "generating ... a third plurality of grid points outside of the region of
interest according to a second grid size"; and (3) "constructing . .. a 2.5D
unstructured grid from the second plurality of grid points and the third
plurality of grid points" can be done entirely mentally by merely thinking
about these particular grid points and associated unstructured grid or writing
them down. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (noting that a recited
step that constructed a map of credit card numbers could be performed by
merely writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular
IP address). In addition, this grid point generation and associated
unstructured grid construction also involves mathematical relationships,
formulas, or equations associated with the grid points' and grid's particular
geometrical representations and relationships to the region of interest. Cf
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (noting that a recited step that
constructed a map of credit card numbers could be performed by merely
31
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP
address); see also Grams, 888 F.2d at 837 n.1 ("Words used in a claim
operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a
formula."); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (noting that analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes within the
abstract idea category); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 ("Without additional
limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information is not patent
eligible."); Benson, 409 U.S. at 63 (holding ineligible claims involving a
mathematical algorithm and directed to converting BCD numerals into pure
binary numerals for use with a computer). Accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1375 ("That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
[Benson]."). Therefore, the recited (1) generating the second and third
pluralities of grid points, and (2) constructing a 2.5D unstructured grid from
these grid points fall squarely within the mental processes and mathematical
concepts categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recite an
abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Lastly, ''processing . .. the 2.5D unstructured grid . .. to produce a
simulation of the reservoir" can be done entirely mentally by merely
thinking about this particular grid and associated reservoir simulation or
writing it down. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (noting that a
recited step that constructed a map of credit card numbers could be
performed by merely writing down a list of credit card transactions made
from a particular IP address). In addition, this processing also involves
32
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
mathematical relationships, formulas, or equations associated with the grid
and its associated simulation. See Alan Freedman, THE COMPUTER
GLOSSARY 357 (9th ed. 2001) (defining "simulation," in pertinent part, as
"[t]he mathematical representation of the interaction of real-world objects"
(emphasis added); see also Grams, 888 F.2d at 837 n.1 ("Words used in a
claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a
formula."); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (noting that analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes within the
abstract idea category); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 ("Without additional
limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information is not patent
eligible."); Benson, 409 U.S. at 63 (holding ineligible claims involving a
mathematical algorithm and directed to converting BCD numerals into pure
binary numerals for use with a computer). Accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1375 ("That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
[Benson]."). Therefore, the recited (1) generating the second and third
pluralities of grid points, and (2) constructing a 2.5D unstructured grid from
these grid points fall squarely within the mental processes and mathematical
concepts categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recite an
abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these methods of
organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts, we
nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into
a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses
33
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract
idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. To this
end, we ( 1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements
beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and
collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application. See id.
Here, the recited (1) computer-implemented method; (2) performing
the steps "by one or more processors"; and (3) processing the 2.5D
unstructured grid "via a reservoir simulator," are the only recited elements
beyond the abstract idea, but those additional elements do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 40 as a whole.
First, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention improves a computer
or its components' functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way
those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal
Circuit in Enfzsh, despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br.
10-11). The claimed self-referential tab le in Enfzs h was a specific type of
data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves
data in memory. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellants
contend that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to improve a
computer's functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that
device functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to
substantiate such a contention.
To the extent that Appellants contend that the claimed invention is
rooted in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution
(see App. Br. 13-16), we disagree. Even assuming, without deciding, that
34
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
claimed invention can construct an unstructured grid from grid points
generated within and outside a region of interest faster than doing so
manually, any speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic
computer components-not the recited process itself. See FairWarning, 839
F.3d at 1095 (citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278 ("[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")); see
also Intellectual Ventures I, 711 F. App'x at 1017 ("Though the claims
purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce error,
we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary
capabilities of a general-purpose computer 'do[] not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter."'). Like the claims in
Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in computer
processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095
( citations and quotation marks omitted).
Nor is this invention analogous to that which the court held eligible in
McRO. There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules
that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a
sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315.
Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using
particular information and techniques-an improvement over manual three-
dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 1316.
But unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the
physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed
35
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
invention here merely uses generic computing components to validate and
authenticate a payment-based transaction between parties. This generic
computer implementation is not only directed to fundamental human activity
organization, mathematical concepts, and mental processes, but also does
not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP, 898
F.3d at 1167 (distinguishing McRO).
Nor is this a case involving eligible subject matter as in the DDR case.
There, instead of a computer network operating in its normal, expected
manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website apparently
connected with a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in DDR
generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented ( 1) product
information from the third party, and (2) visual "look and feel" elements
from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. Given this particular
Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed invention did not
merely use the Internet to perform a business practice known from the pre-
Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in computer technology to
overcome a problem specifically arising in computer networks. Id. at 1257.
That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellants' claimed
invention, in essence, is directed to mental and mathematical processes to
construct an unstructured grid from grid points generated within and outside
a region of interest-albeit by using computer-based components to achieve
that end. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer
technology in the sense contemplated by DDR where the claimed invention
solved a challenge particular to the Internet. Although Appellants' invention
uses various computer-based components noted previously, the claimed
36
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
invention does not solve a challenge particular to the computing components
used to implement this functionality.
Accordingly, we do not find that the claim recites additional elements
improving (1) the computer itself, or (2) another technology or technical
field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract
idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea
on a computer; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(±)); cf TDE, 657
F. App 'x at 992-94 (holding ineligible claims reciting automatically
selecting a well operation state upon determining validity of at least some
mechanical and hydraulic data received from associated systems as directed
to the abstract idea of storing, gathering, and analyzing data).
We add that the limitation reciting "receiving ... a structured grid
having a first plurality of grid points and a well of a reservoir" not only
organizes human activity and uses generic computing components to
perform the abstract idea as noted above, but this receiving function is also
insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore,
does not integrate the exception into a practical application for that
additional reason. See Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963, aff'd on other grounds, 561
U.S. 593 (2010) ( characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-
solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that
even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a
database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-
gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability). Accord Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
37
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
In addition, ''processing . .. the 2.5D unstructured grid . .. to produce
a simulation of the reservoir" in claim 40's last clause is insignificant post-
solution activity, at least in the sense that it is merely ancillary to the focus
of the claimed invention, namely constructing an unstructured grid from grid
points generated within and outside a region of interest, given the processing
function's high level of generality and context in the claimed invention.
Where, as here, the recited processing function is merely ancillary to the grid
generation focus of the claimed invention, given its high level of generality
and context in the claimed invention, the recited processing function is
insignificant post-solution activity and, therefore, does not integrate the
exception into a practical application for this additional reason. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claims do
not preempt the alleged abstract idea. App. Br. 16. Where, as here, the
claims cover a patent-ineligible concept, preemption concerns "are fully
addressed and made moot" by an analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework.
See Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379.
In conclusion, although the recited functions may be beneficial by
constructing an unstructured grid from grid points generated within and
outside a region of interest, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is
still an abstract idea. See id. at 1379--80.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 40 is directed to an
abstract idea.
38
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
Claims 4rJ-43: Alice/Mayo Step Two
Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim 40's additional recited
elements, namely the recited ( 1) computer-implemented method; (2)
performing the steps "by one or more processors"; and (3) processing the
2.5D unstructured grid "via a reservoir simulator,"----considered individually
and as an ordered combination----do not provide an inventive concept such
that these additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As
noted above, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing
components to implement the recited abstract idea.
To the extent that Appellants contend that the recited limitations,
including ( 1) "receiving ... a structured grid having a first plurality of grid
points and a well of a reservoir"; (2) "determining . .. a region of interest in
the structured grid"; (3)
generating ... a second plurality of grid points in the region of
interest according to a first grid size, wherein generating the
second plurality of grid points comprises generating a plurality
of multi-level quad-tree local grid refinement (LGR) grid points
based on a user-specified number of levels and user specified
near-well distances;
( 4) "generating ... a third plurality of grid points outside of the region of
interest according to a second grid size"; (5) "constructing . .. a 2.5D
unstructured grid from the second plurality of grid points and the third
plurality of grid points"; and (6) ''processing . .. the 2.5D unstructured grid
... to produce a simulation of the reservoir" add significantly more than the
abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two (see
App. Br. 17-19), these limitations are not additional elements beyond the
39
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
abstract idea, but rather are directed to the abstract idea as noted previously.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (instructing that additional recited
elements should be evaluated in Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether
they ( 1) add specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and
conventional in the field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry ( citing MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)).
Rather, the recited (1) computer-implemented method; (2) performing
the steps "by one or more processors"; and (3) processing the 2.5D
unstructured grid "via a reservoir simulator," are the additional recited
elements whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine,
and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1368 (Noting that a
recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a user identity), database, and
communication medium are generic computer elements.); Mortgage Grader,
811 F.3d at 1324--25 (noting that components such an "interface,"
"network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not
satisfy the inventive concept requirement); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355
("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with
no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). Accord Final
Act. 8 (concluding that the claims' additional generic computer components
do not add significantly more than the abstract idea); see also Spec. ,r,r 34
( describing a known parallel reservoir simulator), 86-99 ( describing generic
computer components associated with the disclosed invention).
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the recited insignificant
extra-solution activity, namely (1) "receiving ... a structured grid having a
first plurality of grid points and a well of a reservoir"; and (2) ''processing.
40
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
.. the 2.5D unstructured grid . .. to produce a simulation of the reservoir."
That (1) a structured grid with grid points is received, and (2) a 2.5D
unstructured grid is processed to produce a reservoir simulation does not
mean that these steps are performed in an unconventional way to add
significantly more than the abstract idea and provide an inventive concept
under Alice/Mayo step two. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Given these
limitations' ( 1) high level of generality, and (2) use of generic computing
components whose functionality is well-understood, routine, and
conventional for the reasons noted previously, the recited extra-solution
activity does not add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an
inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. To the extent Appellants
contend otherwise (see App. Br. 17-19), we disagree.
Appellants' reliance on BASCOM (App. Br. 18) is unavailing. There,
the court held eligible claims directed to a technology-based solution to filter
Internet content that overcame existing problems with other Internet filtering
systems by making a known filtering solution-namely a "one-size-fits-all"
filter at an ISP-more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at
the ISP. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering
solution improved the computer system's performance and, therefore, was
patent-eligible. See id. But unlike the filtering system improvements in
BASCOM that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the
claimed invention here uses generic computing components to implement an
abstract idea as noted previously.
In conclusion, the additional recited elements----considered
individually and as an ordered combination----do not add significantly more
41
Appeal2018-006902
Application 14/171,815
than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step
two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 40, and claims 41--43 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-17, 19--29, 31-35,
and 40--4 3 under § 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-17, 19--29,
31-35, and 40--43.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
42