DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 2 is objected to.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/CN2020/076346, filed 02/24/2020 and or foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to App. No. CHINA 201910676727.4, filed 07/25/2019 is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/28/2021, 03/23/2022, 02/28/2024, and 05/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. Signed copies of the IDS documents are included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The Drawings submitted 03/22/2023 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit”, “an oil yield prediction unit”, and “a gas yield prediction unit” in claim 13, “residual oil generation amount prediction unit” and “residual gas generation amount prediction unit” in claim 15, “oil retention amount prediction unit” and “gas retention amount prediction unit” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The three-prong test: (A) “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; (B) unit is modified by the functional language “configured to”; (C) unit is modified by “acquisition”, which does not provide sufficient structure for performing the step to acquire an original total organic carbon (TOC) value, a vitrinite reflectance (Ro) value and an original hydrogen index (HI) value of a shale to be measured. The specification discloses an acquisition unit [0013 and 0121] but does not disclose adequate structure to perform the claimed function. See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
The three-prong test: (A) “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; (B) unit is modified by the functional language “configured to”; (C) unit is modified by “oil yield prediction”, which does not provide sufficient structure for performing the step to obtain an oil yield of the shale. The specification discloses an oil yield prediction unit [0014 and 00122] but does not disclose adequate structure to perform the claimed function. See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
The three-prong test: (A) “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; (B) unit is modified by the functional language “configured to”; (C) unit is modified by “gas yield prediction”, which does not provide sufficient structure for performing the step to obtain a gas yield of the shale to be measured. The specification discloses an oil yield prediction unit [0015 and 00123] but does not disclose adequate structure to perform the claimed function. See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
The three-prong test: (A) “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; (B) unit is modified by the functional language “configured to”; (C) unit is modified by “residual oil generation amount prediction”, which does not provide sufficient structure for performing the step to obtain a gas yield of the shale to be measured. The specification discloses an oil yield prediction unit [00137] but does not disclose adequate structure to perform the claimed function. See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
The three-prong test: (A) “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; (B) unit is modified by the functional language “configured to”; (C) unit is modified by “residual gas generation amount prediction”, which does not provide sufficient structure for performing the step to obtain a gas yield of the shale to be measured. The specification discloses an oil yield prediction unit [00138] but does not disclose adequate structure to perform the claimed function. See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
The three-prong test: (A) “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; (B) unit is modified by the functional language “configured to”; (C) unit is modified by “oil retention amount prediction”, which does not provide sufficient structure for performing the step to obtain a gas yield of the shale to be measured. The specification discloses an oil yield prediction unit [00146] but does not disclose adequate structure to perform the claimed function. See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
The three-prong test: (A) “unit” is a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; (B) unit is modified by the functional language “configured to”; (C) unit is modified by “gas retention amount prediction”, which does not provide sufficient structure for performing the step to obtain a gas yield of the shale to be measured. The specification discloses an oil yield prediction unit [00147] but does not disclose adequate structure to perform the claimed function. See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 and those dependent therefrom is/are rejected because, as outlined above under 35 USC 112(f), the disclosure does not contain adequate structure for “an acquisition unit”, “an oil yield prediction unit”, and “a gas yield prediction unit” to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, there is insufficient disclosure as to necessary structure, steps explained in prose, or any mathematical expression necessary to carry out the above recited function.
Claim 15 and those dependent therefrom is/are rejected because, as outlined above under 35 USC 112(f), the disclosure does not contain adequate structure for “residual oil generation amount prediction unit” and “residual gas generation amount prediction unit” to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, there is insufficient disclosure as to necessary structure, steps explained in prose, or any mathematical expression necessary to carry out the above recited function.
Claim 16 and those dependent therefrom is/are rejected because, as outlined above under 35 USC 112(f), the disclosure does not contain adequate structure for “oil retention amount prediction unit” and “gas retention amount prediction unit” to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, there is insufficient disclosure as to necessary structure, steps explained in prose, or any mathematical expression necessary to carry out the above recited function.
With respect to the above limitations, adequate written description for specific programming to carry out said functions in computer-related inventions requires disclosure of the algorithm by which to perform said function. Without the algorithm disclosed, it is unclear as to the exact structure that performs said function (see Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Halliburton Energy Services v. M-I LLC 514 F.3d 1244, 1256 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). This raises issues under 112(a) because without the respective algorithms disclosed, one is not apprised of the inventor or joint inventor having possession of the claimed invention.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 line 15, 2, 5, 8, 13 line 16, and 14-18, limitations recite “a thermal simulation experiment”. It is unclear if the claims require multiple thermal simulation experiments to be performed or if they are referring to the same experiment. Please clarify how many times the thermal simulation experiment must be performed. Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected for the same reason because they depend from claims 1, 13, and 17 respectively, and do not resolve the indefiniteness issue in those claims.
Claim 11, limitation, recites “the residual oil generation amount”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no previous recitation of “a residual oil generation amount”.
Claim 12, limitations, recite “the residual gas generation amount” and “the gas retention amount”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no previous recitation of “a residual gas generation amount” and “a gas retention amount”.
Claims 13-16 and those dependent therefrom limitation an acquisition unit”, “an oil yield prediction unit”, and “a gas yield prediction unit”, “residual oil generation amount prediction unit”, “residual gas generation amount prediction unit”, “oil retention amount prediction unit” and “gas retention amount prediction unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. (i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 organizes judicial exception analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prongs One and Two) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1
With respect to Step 1: yes, the claims are directed to method, apparatus, and computer device, i.e., a process, machine, or manufacture within the above 101 categories [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of t mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) are as follows:
Independent claims 1 and 17:
acquiring an original total organic carbon (TOC) value, a vitrinite reflectance (Ro) value and an original hydrogen index (HI) value of a shale to be measured
obtaining an oil yield of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting oil yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting oil yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on oil yield data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples; and
obtaining a gas yield of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting gas yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting gas yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on gas yield data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples.
Dependent claims 2 and 18:
obtaining the original TOC value of the shale to be measured based on a TOC value and a Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting original TOC, wherein the model for predicting original TOC is pre-established based on a TOC change rate obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples; and
obtaining the original HI value of the shale to be measured based on a HI value and a Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting original HI, wherein the model for predicting original HI is pre-established based on a HI change rate obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples.
Dependent claim 3:
The method for predicting oil and gas yields in in-situ oil shale exploitation according to claim 2, wherein the model for predicting original HI is:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein HI0 denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured; HI denotes the HI value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured; Ro denotes the Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured, and a2 and b2 denote empirical coefficients.
Dependent claim 4:
PNG
media_image2.png
206
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the model for predicting original TOC is:
TOC, denotes the original TOC value of the shale to be measured; TOC denotes the TOC value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured; Ro denotes the Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured; HIo denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured; and b311, b312, b313, b314, b315, b321, b322 and b323 denote empirical coefficients.
Dependent claims 5:
obtaining a residual oil generation amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting residual oil generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting residual oil generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre- established based on residual oil generation amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples; and
obtaining a residual gas generation amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting residual gas generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting residual gas generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre- established based on residual gas generation amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples.
Dependent claim 6:
wherein the model for predicting residual oil generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is:
PNG
media_image3.png
74
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Qog denotes the residual oil generation amount of the shale to be measured; Qogs denotes a total oil generation amount of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; Ro denotes the Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured; a4 and b4 denote empirical coefficients; TOCO, denotes the original TOC value of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; HIO, denotes the original HI value of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; TOCo, denotes the original TOC value of the shale to be measured; and HIO, denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured.
Dependent claim 7:
wherein the model for predicting residual gas generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
701
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein, Qgg denotes the residual gas generation amount of the shale to be measured; Qggs denotes a total residual gas generation amount of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; Ro denotes the Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured; TOCS denotes the original TOC value of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; H8 denotes the original HI value of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; TOCt denotes the original TOC value of the shale to be measured; HI, denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured; and a51, a , a53 and b51 denote empirical coefficients.
Dependent claims 8:
obtaining an oil retention amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting oil retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting oil retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on oil retention amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples; and
obtaining a gas retention amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting gas retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting gas retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on gas retention amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale sample.
Dependent claim 9:
wherein the model for predicting oil retention amount in in- situ oil shale exploitation is:
PNG
media_image5.png
80
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein Qos denotes the oil retention amount of the shale to be measured; Qog denotes a residual oil generation amount of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; TOC, denotes the original total organic carbon value of the shale to be measured; f(a6), f(b6), f(c6), f(d6) denote correction coefficients related to the Ro value of the shale to be measured; Bor denotes a ratio of an oil volume factor under an actual formation pressure in a research area to which the shale to be measured belongs, to an oil volume factor under a pressure used in the simulation; HIOS denotes the original HI value of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; and HI, denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured.
Dependent claim 10:
wherein the model for predicting gas retention amount in in- situ oil shale exploitation is:
PNG
media_image6.png
69
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein, Qgs denotes the gas retention amount of the shale to be measured; Q. denotes the residual gas generation amount of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; f(a,) and f(b,) denote correction coefficients related to TOC of the shale to be measured; Bgr denotes a ratio of a gas deviation factor under an actual formation temperature and an actual pressure in a research area to which the shale to be measured belongs, to a gas deviation factor under a temperature and a pressure used in the simulation, HIO, denotes the original HI value of the shale samples in the thermal simulation experiment; HIO, denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured; and Ro denotes the Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured.
Dependent claim 11:
wherein the model for predicting oil yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation is:
PNG
media_image7.png
130
482
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein, Q,0 denotes the oil yield of the shale to be measured; Qos denotes the oil retention amount of the shale to be measured; Qog denotes the residual oil generation amount of the shale to be measured; Ro denotes the Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured; f(ags), f(a82), f(a83) denote correction coefficients related to the Ro value of the shale to be measured, HI denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured; TOC denotes the original TOC value of the shale to be measured; and c81, c82, c3 and c4 denote empirical coefficients.
Dependent claim 12:
wherein the model for predicting gas yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation is:
PNG
media_image8.png
221
554
media_image8.png
Greyscale
HT=10-3xHIOxTOCO; Qpg denotes the gas yield of the shale to be measured; Qgs denotes the gas retention amount of the shale to be measured; Qgg denotes the residual gas generation amount of the shale to be measured; Ro denotes the Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured; HI denotes the original HI value of the shale to be measured; TOC, denotes the original TOC value of the shale to be measured; f(a91) and f(b1) denote correction coefficients related to the Ro value of the shale to be measured; and c911, c912, c913, c914, c915, c916, c917 and c91s denote empirical coefficients.
Under the BRI, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mental process”, such as procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, and forming judgement or an opinion. The instant claims further recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mathematical concept”, such as mathematical relationships and mathematical equations.
The claim recites the use of pre-established models with corresponding algorithms. Each can be performed with pen and paper as they do not require a computer therefore, they are a mental process and also mathematical concepts. The claims recite a mathematical concepts of predicting original TOC is pre-established based on a TOC change rate, predicting original HI is pre-established based on a HI change rate, and those algorithms in claims 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12.
Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 17 and those claims dependent therefrom recite an abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.04].
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A, Prong Two, provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Additional elements, Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
The claims also include non-abstract computing elements. For example, independent claim 17 includes a computing device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor.
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following reasons. Those
steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of “a computing device” do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that judicial exceptions into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc.… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, none of the claims recite additional elements which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims,
With respect to claim 17 and those claims dependent therefrom, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [16 and 164]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself [Step 2B: NO; See MPEP § 2106.05].
Therefore, the instant claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
2. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is further directed to non-statutory subject matter. Under the BRI of the claims they are interpretated as software or instructions based on the description in the specification. Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations MPEP 2106.03.
3. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is further directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims read on carrier waves and include transitory propagating signals. (In re Nuijten, Federal Circuit, 2006). It is noted that the recitation of a "non-transitory computer-readable medium" would overcome the rejection with respect to this issue under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
A. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PetroChina (CN 108547612 A, filed 09/18/2018, cited on IDS dated 01/28/2021) in view of Jian et al. (Jian, L. I., et al. "Modeling of the whole hydrocarbon-generating process of sapropelic source rock." Petroleum Exploration and Development 45.3 (2018), newly cited).
Claim 13 is directed to an apparatus for predicting oil and gas yields in in-situ oil shale exploitation.
PetroChina discloses that the technical solution may be embodied in the form of a software product, and the computer software product may be stored in a storage medium, and comprises a plurality of instructions used to cause a computer device to execute the method.
Claim 17 is directed to a computer device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor, wherein the processor implements, when executing the computer program, a method according to any one of claim 1 for predicting oil and gas yields in in-situ oil shale exploitation.
PetroChina discloses that the technical solution may be embodied in the form of a software product, and the computer software product may be stored in a storage medium, and comprises a plurality of instructions used to cause a computer device to execute the method.
Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium storing therein a computer program for performing the method according to claim 1.
PetroChina discloses that the technical solution may be embodied in the form of a software product, and the computer software product may be stored in a storage medium, and comprises a plurality of instructions used to cause a computer device to execute the method.
Claims 1, 13, 17, and 20 are directed to predicting oil and gas yields in in-situ oil shale exploitation, comprising: acquiring an original total organic carbon (TOC) value, a vitrinite reflectance (Ro) value and an original hydrogen index (HI) value of a shale to be measured; obtaining an oil yield of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting oil yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting oil yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on oil yield data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples; and obtaining a gas yield of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting gas yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting gas yield in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on gas yield data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples.
PetroChina discloses a determination method for an oil production amount and a gas production amount in in-situ shale oil conversion, comprising: acquiring a plurality of shale samples of a target layer of a target region, the shale samples being raw shale samples; measuring the plurality of shale samples to acquire an initial TOC parameter, an initial Ro parameter, and an initial HC parameter of each shale sample in the plurality of shale samples; on the basis of the plurality of shale samples, performing a thermal simulation test respectively on each shale sample in the plurality of shale samples to establish an oil production model and a gas production model, specifically comprising: on the basis of a model of the initial TOC parameter, the initial Ro parameter, the initial HC parameter, and the initial Ro parameter of each shale sample, and an oil generation amount and a gas generation amount of each shale sample at various preset temperatures, establishing an oil generation potential model and a gas generation potential model; on the basis of the initial TOC parameter, the initial Ro parameter, and the initial HC parameter of each shale sample, the oil generation amount and the gas generation amount of each shale sample at each preset temperature, a first retained oil amount and a first retained gas amount of each shale sample at each preset temperature, and the oil generation potential model and the gas generation potential model, establishing an oil retention ratio model and a gas retention ratio model; on the basis of the oil retention ratio model and the gas retention ratio model, and the initial TOC parameter, the initial Ro parameter, and the initial HC parameter of each shale sample, establishing an oil production ratio model and a gas production ratio model; and on the basis of the oil/gas production ratio models, establishing oil/ gas production models (equivalent to the prediction models for oil/gas being established on the basis of oil/ gas production data obtained from performing thermal simulation testing on a plurality of different shale samples, and original TOC values and RO values of the shale samples); on the basis of the oil production model, determining an oil production amount of the target layer of the target region; and on the basis of the gas production model, determining an gas production amount of the target layer of the target region [0006-0040 and 02024-0245]. PetroChina is silent on the parameters of the prediction model comprise an original hydrogen index (HI) value.
However, Jian discloses modeling of the whole hydrocarbon-generating process of sapropelic source rock [title]. Jian further discloses TOC—total organic carbon content; S0—gaseous hydrocarbons content; S1—free hydrocarbons content; S2—retained hydrocarbons content; Tmax—peak cracking temperature; IH—hydrogen index; Ro—organic thermal maturity; K2q—Upper Cretaceous Qingshankou Formation; E2s—Paleogene Shahejie Formation as basic geochemical data of samples [p. 463, table 1.]. Jian also discloses with the methods used in the hydrocarbon generation and expulsion simulation experiments under stratigraphic conditions described above, simulation experiments on the targeted Xiamaling Formation mud shale were carried out, and the evolution curves of retained hydrocarbon, crude oil and total hydrocarbon were obtained [p. 463, col. 2, par. 3].
Claims 2, 14, and 18 are directed to predicting oil and gas yields in in-situ oil shale exploitation according to claim 1, wherein acquiring the original total organic carbon (TOC) value, the vitrinite reflectance (Ro) value and the original hydrogen index (HI) value of the shale to be measured comprises: obtaining the original TOC value of the shale to be measured based on a TOC value and a Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting original TOC, wherein the model for predicting original TOC is pre-established based on a TOC change rate obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples; and obtaining the original HI value of the shale to be measured based on a HI value and a Ro value obtained by measuring the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting original HI, wherein the model for predicting original HI is pre-established based on a HI change rate obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples.
PetroChina discloses to accurately determine the oil and gas production of this type of target area and evaluate its development potential, TOC and HC recovery processes can be used to establish TOC and HC recovery models, respectively [0227]. PetroChina further discloses based on the Ro parameter of the shale sample and the TOC recovery model, the initial TOC parameter (i.e., the original TOC parameter) of the shale sample is calculated [0227]. PetroChina also discloses similarly, based on the Ro parameter and the HC recovery model, the initial HC parameter (i.e., the original HC parameter) of the shale sample is calculated [-227]. PetroChina further discloses the above-mentioned TOC and HC recovery processing of the multiple groups of shale samples to obtain the initial TOC parameters and initial HC parameters of the target area [0227]. PetroChina also discloses prepare multiple kerogens from the remaining sub-samples in each group of shale samples, and conduct a third thermal simulation experiment on the multiple kerogens at multiple preset temperatures to obtain the Ro parameter, HC parameter, and TOC parameter of each group of shale samples at each preset temperature; wherein, the multiple preset temperatures included in the third thermal simulation experiment are the same as those included in the first thermal simulation experiment, and the simulation pressure of the third thermal simulation experiment is the same as the simulation pressure of the first thermal simulation experiment [0231]. PetroChina further discloses based on the Ro, HC, and TOC parameters of each group of shale samples at various preset temperatures, and the Ro parameter model, a TOC recovery model and an HC recovery model are established respectively [0235]. PetroChina also discloses this may include the following: analyzing the changes in TOC and HC parameters with the influence of the Ro parameter based on the obtained Ro, HC, and TOC parameters of each group of shale samples at various preset temperatures, and the Ro parameter model; establishing an HC recovery model (or HC evaluation model) to characterize the interaction between the Ro and HC parameters based on the aforementioned changes [0235].
Claims 5 and 15 are directed to predicting oil and gas yields in in-situ oil shale exploitation according to claims 1 and 13, further comprising: obtaining a residual oil generation amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting residual oil generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting residual oil generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre- established based on residual oil generation amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples; and obtaining a residual gas generation amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting residual gas generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting residual gas generation amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre- established based on residual gas generation amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples.
PetroChina discloses the above input data can be input into the previously established oil generation model, gas generation model, residual oil generation model, and residual gas generation model to obtain the corresponding oil generation, gas generation, residual oil generation, and residual gas generation for the target area [0215].
Claims 8 and 16 are directed to predicting oil and gas yields in in-situ oil shale exploitation according to claims 1 and 13, further comprising: obtaining an oil retention amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting oil retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting oil retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on oil retention amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale samples; and obtaining a gas retention amount of the shale to be measured based on the original TOC value, the Ro value, the original HI value of the shale to be measured and a pre-established model for predicting gas retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation, wherein the model for predicting gas retention amount in in-situ oil shale exploitation is pre-established based on gas retention amount data obtained by performing a thermal simulation experiment on a plurality of different shale samples and the original TOC value, the Ro value and the original HI value of the shale sample.
PetroChina discloses the aforementioned oil retention ratio model and gas retention ratio model, and the initial TOC parameters, initial Ro parameters, and initial HC parameters of each group of shale samples in the multiple groups of shale samples, establish an oil production ratio model and a gas production ratio model [0179].
In regard to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 13, 15-17, and 20, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine PetroChina with Jian as they both discloses modeling shale based on experimental data from hydrocarbon generation with a semi-open system. The motivation would have been to modify the variables of PetroChina as they already disclose parameters of a prediction model comprising an initial hydrogen-carbon ratio (HC) parameter, and it is common knowledge among persons skilled in the art and Jian that oil and gas content is related to the HI. Therefore, substituting an HC parameter with an HI parameter would be a customary technical means in the present field. One could have therefore combined the elements as claimed by the known variables of PetroChina and Jian, and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately for a predictable result.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
It is noted that claims 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12 are free from the prior because the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest the equations of the cited claims and PetroChina or other reference documents, and are not customary technical means in the present field.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn M. Bickham whose telephone number is (703)756-1817. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 - 4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Olivia Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/Soren Harward/Primary Examiner, TC 1600
Prosecution Insights