DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the applicant’s arguments filed on 5/12/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are currently pending.
4. Claim 1 is amended.
5. Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are previously presented.
6. Claim 9 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recent amendment to claim 1 that states “and, in the plume
current, the dispersive movement has a random direction, and in the bottom current, the
dispersive movement has a random direction probabilized according to a slope of the water
bottom.” Computes random parameters, which cannot be performed in the human mind or with
pencil and paper, since randomness is not achievable by the human mind. The applicant also
points to the Research Corp Techs. Case for support as to why the current claims cannot be
conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: pages 7-9)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the recent amendment that states “and, in the plume
current, the dispersive movement has a random direction, and in the bottom current, the
dispersive movement has a random direction probabilized according to a slope of the water
bottom.” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with
pencil and paper. The limitation is only stating that the movement has a random direction in the
plume current and in the bottom current the movement has a random direction that is
probabilized according to a slope of the water bottom. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, as the applicant mentioned in their remarks, the random parameters for the random direction of the movement of the plume and bottom currents are computed. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the examiner notes that the claims of the Research Corp Techs. Case are directed towards rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image). The claims of the current application does not deal with rendering a halftone of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask.
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that with the recent amendment to the claims, the claims are defining how a specific particle is being transported and how it forms the geological reservoir. The applicant also argues that the computer implementation of claim 1 is not merely applying a process on a generic computer or in a computer environment, but rather the computer operates for processing the modeling of the sedimentary area. (Remarks: page 9)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation of claim 1 that states “transporting each introduced particle in the geological gridded model, based on the modelled water current, wherein a transport of a particle is either a displacement of the particle from its current cell to a neighboring cell, or a deposition of the particle in the cell” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the particle is or what the water current is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the claimed method improves the operation of a computer for
modeling the topography of a sedimentary area, which provides an improved operation of the geological reservoir. (Remarks: pages 9-10)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it states "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not "provide a sufficient inventive concept." Intellectual Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA) ("Intellectual Ventures V. Capital One Bank"), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The examiner notes that this section of the MPEP explains as to why the claim limitations are not improving the functionality of a computer. Also, the computer is viewed as an additional element. The computer would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
13. The examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitations are shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 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 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claim 1
Regarding step 1, claim 1 is directed towards a method which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites introducing at least one particle representing sediments in at least one cell of the geological gridded model”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “transporting each introduced particle in the geological gridded model, based on the modelled water current, wherein a transport of a particle is either a displacement of the particle from its current cell to a neighboring cell, or a deposition of the particle in the cell”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each water current is decomposed into a plurality of sub-currents corresponding to respective water depths, comprising at least: a plume current, located at water surface, and a bottom current, located at water bottom”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the determining of a direction of a water current comprises determining a single direction common to each sub-current into which the water current is decomposed”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and the determining of an energy of a water current comprises
computing the energy of the plume current”. This limitation is calculating the energy of the plume current. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and inferring, from the energy of the plume current, the energy of any other sub-current”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and wherein the displacement of the particle is a stochastic movement comprising an advective movement and a dispersive movement”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein, in the plume current, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell, and in the bottom current, if the advective movement occurs, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and, in the plume current, the dispersive movement has a random direction, and in the bottom current, the dispersive movement has a random direction probabilized according to a slope of the water bottom.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “modelling a water current in a geological gridded model of a sedimentary area, wherein the geological gridded model is constructed comprising a plurality of cells wherein each cell is assigned a water depth and represents an area having a side length on the order of kilometers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “transporting each introduced particle in the geological gridded model, based on the modelled water current, wherein a transport of a particle is either a displacement of the particle from its current cell to a neighboring cell, or a deposition of the particle in the cell” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the particle is or what the water current is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “updating a topography of the geological gridded model of the sedimentary area to take into account sediments deposited at the end of the transporting step” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t state how the updating is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a computer. The computer would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “modelling a water current in a geological gridded model of a sedimentary area, wherein the geological gridded model is constructed comprising a plurality of cells wherein each cell is assigned a water depth and represents an area having a side length on the order of kilometers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “transporting each introduced particle in the geological gridded model, based on the modelled water current, wherein a transport of a particle is either a displacement of the particle from its current cell to a neighboring cell, or a deposition of the particle in the cell” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the particle is or what the water current is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “updating a topography of the geological gridded model of the sedimentary area to take into account sediments deposited at the end of the transporting step” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t state how the updating is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of sub-currents further comprises at least one subsurface current, located at a depth between the water surface and the water bottom”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the modelled water current is chosen among the group consisting of: wind-induced current, tidal current, and surface ocean current”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “modelling, for at least one cell, at least two different water currents, by determining a direction and energy of each water current”. This limitation is is viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”.
Dependent claim 4 recites “and determining a direction and energy of a global water current in the cell resulting from the sum of each water current”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the modelled water current is wind-induced current”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “and the modelling of the wind-induced current comprises:
parameterizing a wind strength, and inferring from the wind speed a wave base water depth and a wave breaking water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “setting a direction of waves induced by the wind”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “modelling an offshore current part”. The limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. The specification also doesn’t define how the modeling is being conducted. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation doesn’t mention what type of model is being used to do the model of the offshore current part. Therefore, the model could be a mathematical model that is modeling the offshore current part. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “and, if the direction of the wind-induced waved forms an angle between 1 and 250 with the shoreline, modelling a longshore current part of the wind-induced current”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein each of the offshore current part and the longshore current part comprises a plume current and a bottom current”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “determining a direction of the offshore current as the direction of the wind- induced waves”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “determining a direction of the longshore current as a shore-parallel direction”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “and determining an energy of the offshore current part and longshore current part from the wind strength, the wave base water depth and the wave breaking water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “computing an energy of the offshore plume current at the cell”. This limitation is computing the energy of the offshore plume current. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “the energy of the offshore plume current being a function of the distance of the cell relative to the shoreline, such that the offshore plume current energy increases from zero at the shoreline to its maximum value at a distance from the shore corresponding to a water depth equal to the wave breaking water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “and its value remains equal to its maximum value at a greater distance from the shoreline”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “and inferring an energy of the offshore bottom current at the cell from the velocity of the offshore plume current at the cell”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “the energy of the offshore bottom current at the cell being a function of the depth of the cell, such that the offshore bottom current energy is equal to the offshore plume current velocity at a water depth of zero, and decreases until reaching a value of zero for a water depth of at least the wave base water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “computing an energy of the longshore plume current at the cell”. This limitation is computing the energy of the offshore plume current. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 7 recites “the energy of the longshore plume current being a function of the distance of the cell relative to the shoreline, such that it increases from zero at the shoreline to its maximum value at a distance from the shore corresponding to a water depth equal to the wave breaking water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 7 recites “and its value is zero at a greater distance from the shoreline”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 7 recites “and inferring an energy of the longshore bottom current the cell from the energy of the longshore plume current at the cell”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 7 recites “the energy of the longshore bottom current at the cell being a function of the depth of the cell, such that the longshore bottom current energy is equal to the longshore plume current velocity at a water depth of zero, and decreases until reaching a value of zero for a water depth of at least the wave base water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the modelled water current is a surface ocean current”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “determining a direction of the surface ocean current as parallel to the coastline”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “setting a water depth of ocean surface current limit of influence”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “computing an energy of the plume surface ocean current at the cell”. This limitation is computing the energy of the offshore plume surface ocean current at a cell. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “the velocity of the plume surface ocean current being a function of the distance of the cell relative to the shoreline, such that it increases to zero at the shoreline to its maximum value at a distance from the shore corresponding to a depth equal to the water depth of ocean surface current limit of influence”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “and its value remains equal to its maximum value at a greater distance”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “and inferring an energy of the bottom surface ocean current at the cell from the energy of the plume surface ocean current at the cell”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “the energy of the bottom surface ocean current being a function of the depth of the cell, such that the bottom surface ocean current velocity is equal to the plume surface ocean current energy at a water depth of zero”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “and decreases until reaching a value of zero for a water depth of at least the water depth of ocean surface current limit of influence”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and adapted to cause the processor to carry out, when the computer program is run by the processor, the method according to claim 1.”. The claim includes the additional elements of a processor and medium. The processor and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element of a computer device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites “A device for modelling the formation of a sedimentary area, the device comprising a processor configured to implement the method according to claim 1.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion but for the recitation of a generic computer component. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the modelling of the topography of the sedimentary area further comprises recovering oil or gas from the sedimentary area in accordance with the updated topography of the geological gridded model” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the oil and gas is being recovered, where the recovery is based on the updated topography of the geological gridded model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. PGPub 2011/0240310) (from IDS dated 11/8/21) in view of online reference Effects of tides on freshwater and volume transports in the Changjiang River Plume, written by Li et al. in further view of online reference Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Effluent Outfall Dilution, written by Hunt et al.
With respect to claim 1, Sun et al. discloses “A computer-implemented method of modelling a topography of a sedimentary area and in view of operating a geological reservoir of the sedimentary area” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0007] “Process-based models that are used to aid interpretation or build geologic models of reservoirs in the deposition settings should be capable of capturing the features of the turbidity flow, such as flow stripping and flow divergence as described herein.”)];
“modelling a water current in a geological gridded model of a sedimentary area, wherein the geological gridded model is constructed comprising a plurality of cells wherein each cell is assigned a water depth and represents an area having a side length on the order of kilometers” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0028] “The method captures essential vertical flow structures found in turbidity currents that are important for accurately representing and modeling sediment transport and deposition, and subsequently the formation and evolution of sedimentary bodies and reservoir architectures. The invention is computationally efficient and can be used in applications where calculation and modeling of turbidity currents are involved.”, Sun et al. paragraph [0029] “According to the invention, turbidity current is described by multiple sets of depth-averaged flow variables corresponding to multiple stratified layers in the flow. All of these layers are overlapped, in the sense that the (n+1)th layer always includes the n.sup.th layer. For example, FIG. 4 depicts a model of a turbidity current or flow 40 using a bottom layer 42 and a top layer 44. A two-layer model assumes that the turbidity flow under consideration can be described by two stratified layers”, Sun et al. paragraph [0007] “Unfortunately, while full 3-dimensional flow models are capable of accurately computing the full 3-dimensional structures of the flow, they are computationally formidable and expensive and are not practical for use in the process-based models that are designed to simulate the formation of reservoirs with spatial scales ranging from hundreds of meters to hundreds of kilometers, and with time scales ranging from hundreds to millions of years.”, Fig. 4, The examiner considers the plurality of layers to be the plurality of cells, since each of the plurality of layers has a water depth, as shown in Fig. 4 of the Sun et al. reference. Also, the Sun et al. reference teaches flow variables for each layer. This demonstrates that there are different currents for each layer, since the flow variables are not the same for each layer. Each layer has different size sediments within the layer which has an effect on the current in the layer)];
“and wherein the modelling of the water current comprises determining a direction and an energy of a water current in each cell of the model” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0029] “For example, FIG. 4 depicts a model of a turbidity current or flow 40 using a bottom layer 42 and a top layer 44. A two-layer model assumes that the turbidity flow under consideration can be described by two stratified layers. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the entire flow is characterized by two sets of depth-averaged flow variables.”)];
“introducing at least one particle representing sediments in at least one cell of the geological gridded model” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0028] “The method captures essential vertical flow structures found in turbidity currents that are important for accurately representing and modeling sediment transport and deposition, and subsequently the formation and evolution of sedimentary bodies and reservoir architectures.”, Sun et al. paragraph [0037] “In equation [33] Gi is the volumetric percentage of the sediments of grain-size bin i in the surface layer”)];
“transporting each introduced particle in the geological gridded model, based on the modelled water current” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0028] “The method captures essential vertical flow structures found in turbidity currents that are important for accurately representing and modeling sediment transport and deposition, and subsequently the formation and evolution of sedimentary bodies and reservoir architectures.”)];
“wherein a transport of a particle is either a displacement of the particle from its current cell to a neighboring cell, or a deposition of the particle in the cell” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0028] “The method captures essential vertical flow structures found in turbidity currents that are important for accurately representing and modeling sediment transport and deposition, and subsequently the formation and evolution of sedimentary bodies and reservoir architectures., Sun et al. paragraph [0045] “For example, FIG. 5 schematically depicts a turbidity current that is subdivided into three stratified layers 52, 54, and 56. The bottom layer 52 represents the portion of the current carrying coarse sediments having a relatively large diameter, and the middle layer 54 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having a somewhat smaller diameter. The top layer 56 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having an even smaller diameter.”)];
“wherein each water current is decomposed into a plurality of sub-currents corresponding to respective water depths, comprising at least: and a bottom current, located at water bottom” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0029] “According to the invention, turbidity current is described by multiple sets of depth-averaged flow variables corresponding to multiple stratified layers in the flow. All of these layers are overlapped, in the sense that the (n+1)th layer always includes the n.sup.th layer. For example, FIG. 4 depicts a model of a turbidity current or flow 40 using a bottom layer 42 and a top layer 44. A two-layer model assumes that the turbidity flow under consideration can be described by two stratified layers”, Fig. 4)];
“wherein the determining of a direction of a water current comprises determining a single direction common to each sub-current into which the water current is decomposed” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0029] “According to the invention, turbidity current is described by multiple sets of depth-averaged flow variables corresponding to multiple stratified layers in the flow. All of these layers are overlapped, in the sense that the (n+1)th layer always includes the n.sup.th layer. For example, FIG. 4 depicts a model of a turbidity current or flow 40 using a bottom layer 42 and a top layer 44. A two-layer model assumes that the turbidity flow under consideration can be described by two stratified layers. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the entire flow is characterized by two sets of depth-averaged flow variables., Sun et al. paragraph [0045] “For example, FIG. 5 schematically depicts a turbidity current that is subdivided into three stratified layers 52, 54, and 56. The bottom layer 52 represents the portion of the current carrying coarse sediments having a relatively large diameter, and the middle layer 54 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having a somewhat smaller diameter. The top layer 56 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having an even smaller diameter.”, Figs. 4 and 5)];
While Sun et al. teaches modeling a topography of a sedimentary area and in view of operating a geological reservoir of the sedimentary area and having currents on different layers within the depth of water, Sun et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose “updating a topography of the geological gridded model of the sedimentary area to take into account sediments deposited at the end of the transporting step; a plume current, located at water surface; computing the energy of the plume current; and the determining of an energy of a water current comprises and inferring, from the energy of the plume current, the energy of any other sub-current”
Li et al. discloses “updating a topography of the geological gridded model of the sedimentary area to take into account sediments deposited at the end of the transporting step” as [Li et al. (Pg. 10, right col., 4.3. Suppression of Bulge Growth by Tidal Currents, 2nd paragraph “Using an idealized model configuration consisting of a straight coastline and an inlet for the freshwater outflow, Isobe [2005] proposed inertial instability as a physical interpretation for the ballooning of plume bulges. When disturbances are not forced in ambient waters of a river plume, freshwater particles become unstable due to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, move in arbitrary directions, and accumulate in the ballooning bulge. As a result, the freshwater flux in the downstream coastal current is only about 40% of the river discharge. When the direction of disturbances is prescribed in ambient waters, however, the unstabilized freshwater particles are forced to move in the same direction. By applying an alongshore tidal current, Isobe [2005] found that the unstabilized freshwater particles are restricted to move in the alongshore direction, etc.”, Li et al. pg. 11, left col., “To illustrate Isobe’s mechanism for the Changjiang River plume, we release a number of passive particles across the mouth of Changjiang estuary (21 particles per hour from day 100 to 130) and track them over time in Run TA. As shown in Figure 10, most of the particles are swept in the southeast direction near the river mouth and then are advected downstream along a path parallel to the coastline. Figure 10a shows the locations and ages of the particles on day 160. The majority of particles are found in the downstream coastal current region”)];
“a plume current, located at water surface” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, sec. 3.1 Plume Structure and Dynamics, 1st paragraph “First we examine the plume structure on the sea surface. In Run NA, the plume shows upstream intrusion (i.e., spreads to the north of the Changjiang River) and complex current structure featuring multiple eddies (Figures 3a and 3d). Most of the freshwater gets trapped in the bulge region as well as in the Hangzhou Bay that lies to the immediate south of the Changjiang River. The rest of the freshwater propagates downstream as a weak coastal current hugging the coast. In Run TA, the plume structure is much
better organized and features little upstream penetration. The plume moves in the southeastward direction near the river mouth.”)];
“and the determining of an energy of a water current comprises computing the energy of the plume current” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, right col., 1st paragraph, “To better understand the tidal effects on the plume dynamics, we examine the cross-shelf momentum equation for the tidally averaged flow given by, etc.”, Eqn. 1, The examiner considers the cross-shelf momentum equation for the tidal flow to be the energy that is computed for the plume current , since the cross-shelf momentum equation calculates the momentum of the tidal from the plume)];
“and the determining of an energy of a water current comprises and inferring, from the energy of the plume current, the energy of any other sub-current” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, left col., 1st paragraph, “The vertical structure of the coastal current in Run TA is very different from that in Run NA, as shown in Figures 4d–4i. The plume center lies in waters of about 35-m depth and is separated from the coastline by about 55 km, etc.”, Fig. 4)];
Sun et al. and Li et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing currents within a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sun et al. of teaches modeling a topography of a sedimentary area and in view of operating a geological reservoir of the sedimentary area and having currents on different layers within the depth of water by incorporating updating a topography of the geological gridded model of the sedimentary area to take into account sediments deposited at the end of the transporting step; a plume current, located at water surface; computing the energy of the plume current; and the determining of an energy of a water current comprises and inferring, from the energy of the plume current, the energy of any other sub-current.
Sun et al. in view of Li et al. teaches updating a topography of the geological gridded model of the sedimentary area to take into account sediments deposited at the end of the transporting step; a plume current, located at water surface; computing the energy of the plume current; and the determining of an energy of a water current comprises and inferring, from the energy of the plume current, the energy of any other sub-current.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Li et al. teaches that analyzing tides that affect the dispersal of a river plume in a sea or ocean, the ability to know the amount of freshwater that is transported in the plumes can be accomplished, so that the coastal ocean stratification can be set (Li et al. Pg. 14, left col., 2nd paragraph “The results presented in the paper could have, etc.”).
While the combination of Sun et al. and Li et al. teach transporting each particle in the geological model based on the modeled water current, Sun et al. and Li et al. do not explicitly disclose “and wherein the displacement of the particle is a stochastic movement comprising an advective movement and a dispersive movement, wherein, in the plume current, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell, and in the bottom current, if the advective movement occurs, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell, and, in the plume current, the dispersive movement has a random direction, and in the bottom current, the dispersive movement has a random direction probabilized according to a slope of the water bottom.”
Hunt et al. discloses “and wherein the displacement of the particle is a stochastic movement comprising an advective movement and a dispersive movement” as [Hunt et al. (Pg. 49, sec. 3.4.1, 1st paragraph, “The principal external forcing variables affecting the dye trajectory are the tides and winds. Tidal conditions were determined by predicted tidal heights at Boston, as shown in Figure 3-34. The tides were mid-way from the neap to the spring part of the fortnightly cycle during the dye release, thus the advection and mixing associated with the tides was moderate. Survey activities on each of the three survey days (indicated in shading) started close to high tide, continued through the ebb, and finished during the rising tide.”, Hunt et al. Pg. 60, sec. 3.4.4 Dispersion, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “Based on this approximation, the apparent dispersion rates for the first 6 hours are Kx=23 m2/s Ky=0.9 m2/s, Where Kx corresponds to E-W dispersion and Ky corresponds to N-S dispersion. For this short timescale, neither component of dispersion is due to “ambient” forcing. The E-W “dispersion” is due mostly to advection and outfall geometry, and the N-S dispersion may be strongly influenced by the dynamics of the outfall itself, as indicated by Roberts’ analysis. The dispersion between July 17 and July 18 provides more of an indication of the ambient dispersion processes”)];
“wherein, in the plume current, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell” as [Hunt et al. (Pg. 49, sec. 3.4.1, 1st paragraph, “The principal external forcing variables affecting the dye trajectory are the tides and winds. Tidal conditions were determined by predicted tidal heights at Boston, as shown in Figure 3-34. The tides were mid-way from the neap to the spring part of the fortnightly cycle during the dye release, thus the advection and mixing associated with the tides was moderate.”, Hunt et al. Pg. 63, last paragraph, “The lateral and vertical variations of dye concentrations are shown in normalized (as c/co) three-dimensional form in Figure 3-50a. It can be seen that the data are quite “spiky,” with large fluctuations. These are probably due to internal waves, active near-field mixing, and advection of patches of water with different dye concentrations past the sampling instrument (see Roberts et al., 2001, for further discussion of this phenomenon).”, Fig. 3-50a, Table 3-8)];
“and in the bottom current, if the advective movement occurs, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell” as [Hunt et al. (Pg. 66, last paragraph, “The top of the wastefield at HMZ3 (Figure 3-49) occurs at about 5 m depth. Occasional surfacing can be seen in Figure 3-50. This is most probably isolated puffs in the centers of the turbulent plumes briefly reaching the water surface, however; the great majority of the wastefield is submerged. The bottom is at about 25 m depth. The wastefield thickness is therefore about 20 m. The maximum dye concentration (corresponding to the minimum dilution) occurs at about 15 m depth. The port depths range from 31.5 to 33.9 m with an average of 32.8 m.”, Hunt et al. Pg. 51, last paragraph, “The north-south component had more vertical variability than the E-W component, with some suggestion of internal tidal fluctuations on July 17. The deeper water indicated a persistent southward velocity, typically in the range of 5-10 cm/s. It was probably the result of the regional response to the northerly wind regime, which results in a generally southward flow in western Massachusetts Bay. This southward motion is consistent with the net southward drift of the dye patch.”)];
“and, in the plume current, the dispersive movement has a random direction” as [Hunt et al. (Pg. 59, sec. 3.4.3 Overall Assessment of Transport, 1st paragraph, “The water properties distribution was typical of summertime conditions, and the velocity forcing
conditions were also typical, at least with respect to magnitudes of tidal and mean velocities. The
northerly winds were somewhat atypical of summertime conditions, and the resulting southward drift in the vicinity of the Outfall is not the “normal” regime. However, the non-tidal motion at this site has no preferred direction, so the observed trajectory should be considered as one realization of a random process.”)];
“and in the bottom current, the dispersive movement has a random direction probabilized according to a slope of the water bottom.” as [Hunt et al. (Pg. 59, sec. 3.4.3 Overall Assessment of Transport, 2nd paragraph, “The elongation of the dye patch in the north-south direction is consistent with the dominance of the north-south mean shear during the dye study. The ambient flow conditions during the dye study are within the typical range for the summertime regime, based on a comparison of the dye release with the rest of the data between June and October.”, The examiner considers the north-south direction to be the slope of the water bottom, since this is a direction that the dye flows within the current)];
Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing currents within a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sun et al. and Li et al. of transporting each particle in the geological model based on the modeled water current by incorporating and wherein the displacement of the particle is a stochastic movement comprising an advective movement and a dispersive movement, wherein, in the plume current, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell, and in the bottom current, if the advective movement occurs, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell, and, in the plume current, the dispersive movement has a random direction, and in the bottom current, the dispersive movement has a random direction probabilized according to a slope of the water bottom as taught by Hunt et al. for the purpose of modeling the outfall of a dye in a body of water.
Sun et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of Hunt et al. teaches and wherein the displacement of the particle is a stochastic movement comprising an advective movement and a dispersive movement, wherein, in the plume current, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell, and in the bottom current, if the advective movement occurs, the advective movement has a direction which is that of the water current in the cell, and, in the plume current, the dispersive movement has a random direction, and in the bottom current, the dispersive movement has a random direction probabilized according to a slope of the water bottom.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Hunt et al. teaches that modeling the outfall of a dye in a body of water, the ability to know how the dye will spread can be accomplished. This allows a way to know the direction the dye or an object will spread in different water currents (Hunt et al. Pgs. 73-74, Conclusions, 1st – 4th paragraph, “Both field and modeling results show, etc.”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sun et al. further discloses “wherein the plurality of sub-currents further comprises at least one subsurface current, located at a depth between the water surface and the water bottom” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0045] “For example, FIG. 5 schematically depicts a turbidity current that is subdivided into three stratified layers 52, 54, and 56. The bottom layer 52 represents the portion of the current carrying coarse sediments having a relatively large diameter, and the middle layer 54 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having a somewhat smaller diameter. The top layer 56 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having an even smaller diameter.”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Li et al. further discloses “wherein the modelled water current is chosen among the group consisting of: wind-induced current,.” as [Li et al. (Pg. 2, left col., last sentence, “The structure and pathway of the Changjiang River, etc.”, Li et al. Pg. 2, right col., 1st paragraph, “Moon et al. [2010] showed that low-salinity plume patches are generated, etc.”)];
“tidal current” as [Li et al. (Pg. 9, sec. 4 Discussion, 1st paragraph, “Runs TA-C, TB-C and TC-C are hypothetic numerical experiments in which tidal mixing of the density field is suppressed but the full nonlinear frictional dynamics of tidal currents is simulated. The predicted tidal currents are almost identical between TA-C and TA so that the plume is advected by the same tidal currents.”
“and surface ocean current” as [Li et al. (Pg. 10, sec. 4.3 Suppression of Bulge Growth by Tidal Currents, 1st paragraph, “If neither tidal mixing nor tidal residual currents can account for the large freshwater flux, what are other possible mechanisms? In Figures 9a and 9b we compare M2 (the dominant tidal harmonic) tidal current ellipses with the surface currents of the Changjiang River plume”, Fig. 9b)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sun et al. further discloses “modelling, for at least one cell, at least two different water currents, by determining a direction and energy of each water current” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0045] ““For example, FIG. 5 schematically depicts a turbidity current that is subdivided into three stratified layers 52, 54, and 56. The bottom layer 52 represents the portion of the current carrying coarse sediments having a relatively large diameter, and the middle layer 54 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having a somewhat smaller diameter. The top layer 56 represents the portion of the current carrying sediments having an even smaller diameter.”, Fig. 5)];
“and determining a direction and energy of a global water current in the cell resulting from the sum of each water current” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0045] “Next, the flow variables for the bottom layer 52, combined with the middle layer 54, are computed. Lastly, the flow variables for the combined bottom layer 52, middle layer 54, and top layer 56 are analyzed.”, Sun et al. paragraph [0046] “The computation of flow variables for various stratified layers has been disclosed as beginning from the bottom-most layer and working upward. The invention may also solve for the flow variables by beginning at the topmost layer of the turbidity current. For example, the three-layer turbidity flow model shown in FIG. 5 may be analyzed first by solving for the flow variables relating to the top layer 56. Next, the flow variables relating to the combined top and middle layers 56, 54 are analyzed.”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 3 above, and Li et al. further discloses “wherein the modelled water current is a surface ocean current” as [Li et al. (Pg. 10, sec. 4.3 Suppression of Bulge Growth by Tidal Currents, 1st paragraph, “If neither tidal mixing nor tidal residual currents can account for the large freshwater flux, what are other possible mechanisms? In Figures 9a and 9b we compare M2 (the dominant tidal harmonic) tidal current ellipses with the surface currents of the Changjiang River plume”, Fig. 9b)];
“and modelling the surface ocean current comprises: determining a direction of the surface ocean current as parallel to the coastline” as [Li et al. (Pg. 11, left col., “To illustrate Isobe’s mechanism for the Changjiang River plume, we release a number of passive particles across the mouth of Changjiang estuary (21 particles per hour from day 100 to 130) and track them over time in Run TA. As shown in Figure 10, most of the particles are swept in the
southeast direction near the river mouth and then are advected downstream along a path parallel to the coastline”, Li et al. Pg. 10, right col., sec. 4.3 Suppression of Bulge Growth by Tidal Currents, 2nd paragraph, “Using an idealized model configuration consisting of a straight coastline and an inlet for the freshwater outflow, Isobe [2005] proposed inertial instability as a physical interpretation for the ballooning of plume bulges. When disturbances are not forced in ambient waters of a river plume, freshwater particles become unstable due to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, move in arbitrary directions, and accumulate in the ballooning bulge. As a result, the freshwater flux in the downstream coastal current is only about 40% of the river discharge.”, Fig. 9)];
“computing an energy of the plume surface ocean current at the cell” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, right col., 1st paragraph, “To better understand the tidal effects on the plume dynamics, etc.”, Eqn. 1)];
“the velocity of the plume surface ocean current being a function of the distance of the cell relative to the shoreline, such that it increases to zero at the shoreline to its maximum value at a distance from the shore corresponding to a depth equal to the water depth of ocean surface current limit of influence” as [Li et al. (Pgs. 5-6, right col., last paragraph “Freshwater in Run NA remains attached to the coast with isohalines nearly horizontal near the coast but sloping at the plume front (Figure 4a). The along-shelf jet is surface intensified with substantial vertical, etc.”, Li et al. Pg. 6, right col., 1st paragraph, “To better understand the tidal effects on the plume dynamics, etc.”, Eqn. 1)];
“and its value remains equal to its maximum value at a greater distance” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, left col., 1st paragraph, “Since the horizontal density gradient is strongest on the offshore side of the plume’s center, the strongest along-shelf current is found at a location that is 65 km away from the coastline.”)];
“and inferring an energy of the bottom surface ocean current at the cell from the energy of the plume surface ocean current at the cell” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, sec. 3.1 Plume Structure and Dynamics, 1st paragraph, “In Run NA, the plume shows upstream intrusion (i.e., spreads to the north of the Changjiang River) and complex current structure featuring multiple eddies (Figures 3a and 3d). Most of the freshwater gets trapped in the bulge region as well as in the Hangzhou Bay that lies to the immediate south of the Changjiang River. The rest of the freshwater propagates downstream as a weak coastal current hugging the coast. In Run TA, the plume structure is much better organized and features little upstream penetration”, Fig. 3)];
“the energy of the bottom surface ocean current being a function of the depth of the cell, such that the bottom surface ocean current velocity is equal to the plume surface ocean current energy at a water depth of zero, and decreases until reaching a value of zero for a water depth of at least the water depth of ocean surface current limit of influence.” as [Li et al. (Pgs. 5-6, right col., last paragraph, “Next we compare the vertical structure of the buoyancy coastal current at a cross-shelf section downstream, etc.”, Fig. 4)];
Sun et al. discloses “setting a water depth of ocean surface current limit of influence” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0048] “At block 64 a set of depth-averaged flow variables are defined for each flow layer. According to the invention, the depth-averaged flow variables may include the depth of each flow layer, etc.”, Figs. 5 and 6, The examiner considers the depth of each flow layer to include a water depth of ocean surface current, since the different layers of current as shown in Fig. 5 of the Sun et al. includes a top layer that is considered a surface layer)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sun et al. further discloses “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and adapted to cause the processor to carry out, when the computer program is run by the processor, the method according to claim 1.” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0026] “This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable medium. A computer-readable medium includes any mechanism for storing or transmitting information in a form readable by a machine, such as a computer (`machine` and `computer` are used interchangeably herein).”, Fig. 8)];
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Sun et al. further discloses “A device for modelling the formation of a sedimentary area, the device comprising a processor configured to implement the method according to claim 1.” as [Sun et al. (paragraph [0026] “Embodiments of the invention also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer.”, Sun et al. paragraph [0028] “The method captures essential vertical flow structures found in turbidity currents that are important for accurately representing and modeling sediment transport and deposition, and subsequently the formation and evolution of sedimentary bodies and reservoir architectures. The invention is computationally efficient and can be used in applications where calculation and modeling of turbidity currents are involved.”)];
16. Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of in further view of Hunt et al. Jiang et al. (CN 104765966 - Translation) (from IDS dated 11/8/21) in further view of online reference The effect of wind waves on the development of river moth bars, written by Nardin et al.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 3 above, and Li et al. further discloses “wherein the modelled water current is wind-induced current” as [Li et al. (Pg. 2, left col., last sentence, “The structure and pathway of the Changjiang River, etc.”, Li et al. Pg. 2, right col., 1st paragraph, “Moon et al. [2010] showed that low-salinity plume patches are generated, etc.”)];
“wherein each of the offshore current part and the longshore current part comprises a plume current and a bottom current” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, sec. 3.1 Plume Structure and Dynamics, 1st paragraph, right col., “The plume moves in the southeastward direction near the river mouth. It then turns right to form a strong coastal current outside the island chain and along a path parallel to the China East Coast”, Li et al. Pg. 11, left col., 1st paragraph, “As shown in Figure 10, most of the particles are swept in the southeast direction near the river mouth and then are advected downstream along a path parallel to the coastline.”, Li et al. Pg. 6, right col., “A convergence zone develops at the front between the onshore and offshore flows near the 30 m isobath. The offshore flow advects low salinity water seaward of the foot of the plume front so that the surface front extends further in the offshore direction.”, With the flow of the current going parallel to the coastline, demonstrates that there is a longshore current, since longshore current is current that flows parallel to the shoreline, see Pg. 24 lines 24-27 of the specification)];
While the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. teaches modelled water current is chosen among the group consisting of: wind-induced current, tidal current and surface ocean current, Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. do not explicitly disclose “parameterizing a wind strength, and inferring from the wind speed a wave base water depth and a wave breaking water depth; setting a direction of waves induced by the wind”
Jiang et al. discloses “parameterizing a wind strength, and inferring from the wind speed a wave base water depth and a wave breaking water depth” as [Jiang et al. (Pg. 9, 3rd paragraph, “Firstly, it needs to be noted that, the main forming process of (as shown in FIG. 7) comprising an air acting on lake will generate wave and wave to the shore propagation process because the depth will be crushed and broken wave results in the formation of the sediment under the disturbance of the wave and sediment from shore and offshore on two directions near to the wave line aggregation, deposition, etc.”, Fig. 7)];
“setting a direction of waves induced by the wind” as [Jiang et al. (Pg. 9, 3rd paragraph, “Firstly, it needs to be noted that, the main forming process of (as shown in FIG. 7) comprising an air acting on lake will generate wave and wave to the shore propagation process because the depth will be crushed and broken wave results in the formation of the sediment under the disturbance of the wave and sediment from shore and offshore on two directions near to the wave line aggregation, deposition, etc.”, Fig. 7, The sediment of under disturbance of the wave is in a direction based on the air acting on the lake)];
Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al. and Jiang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing currents within a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. of having modelled water current is chosen among the group consisting of: wind-induced current, tidal current and surface ocean current by incorporating parameterizing a wind strength, and inferring from the wind speed a wave base water depth and a wave breaking water depth; setting a direction of waves induced by the wind as taught by Jiang et al. for the purpose of measuring the coastal bar thickness of a lake.
Sun et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of Hunt et al. in further view of Jiang et al. teaches parameterizing a wind strength, and inferring from the wind speed a wave base water depth and a wave breaking water depth.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Jiang et al. teaches that by measuring the coastal bar thickness of a lake, the ability to obtain the form of the wind that is blowing accurately can be accomplished, in order to accurately obtain the deposition thickness of the bank of the shoreline (Jiang et al. Pg. 2 1st – 2nd paragraph, “However, due to the formation of by the storm control function, etc.”).
While the combination of Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al. and Jiang et al. teaches parameterizing a wind strength, and inferring from the wind speed a wave base water depth and a wave breaking water depth, Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al. and Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose “modelling an offshore current part and, if the direction of the wind-induced waved forms an angle between 1 and 250 with the shoreline, a longshore current part of the wind-induced current; determining a direction of the offshore current as the direction of the wind- induced waves; determining a direction of the longshore current as a shore-parallel direction; and longshore current part from the wind strength, the wave base water depth and the wave breaking water depth”
Nardin et al. discloses “modelling an offshore current part and, if the direction of the wind-induced waved forms an angle between 1 and 250 with the shoreline, modelling a longshore current part of the wind-induced current” as [Nardin et al. (Pg. 3, sec. 3 Effect of Waves on River Mouth Jet, 2nd paragraph, “Waves attacking the river mouth at an angle lead to a deflection of the river jet downdrift [Wright, 1977, see Figure 1b]. The deflection increases for high wave angles, and it is maximum when the waves propagate almost parallel to the shore (Figure 1b). Higher waves with long period increase jet deflection until a limit angle, above which waves do not change the jet curvature (Figures 1c and 1d).”, Nardin et al. Pg. 3, sec. 4 Morphological Evolution of a Mouth Bar Attacked by Waves, 1st paragraph, “Numerical simulations of bar formation under the influence of waves result in four possible river mouth morphologies: central bar, side bar, deflected mouth, and wave dominated (Figure 3). For low wave conditions the bar forms at the center, producing a bifurcation of the flow similar to the case without waves”)];
“determining a direction of the offshore current as the direction of the wind- induced waves” as [Nardin et al. (Pg. 6 left col., “Therefore an intermediate angle must exist for which: i) jet spreading is limited, thus maintaining a fast and confined jet that carries all the sediments away from the coastline; ii) the wave angle is low enough to trigger high bottom shear stresses that keep the sediment in suspension thus favoring sediment delivery far from the mouth.”, With the sediments being carried away from the coastline, demonstrates that the direction of the current is an offshore current, since offshore current is current that flows away from the shoreline)];
“determining a direction of the longshore current as a shore-parallel direction” as [Nardin et al. (Pg. 3, sec. 4 Morphological Evolution of a Mouth Bar Attacked by Waves, 1st paragraph, “Strong waves with a large angle deflect the river mouth, leading to a jet that flows parallel to the shoreline. In this case large quantities of sediments are deposited between the jet and the shoreline, producing a swash bar that extends along the coast (deflected mouth case, Figure 3).”)];
“determining an energy of the offshore current part and longshore current part from the wind strength, the wave base water depth and the wave breaking water depth.” as [Nardin et al. (Pg. 3, sec. 4 Morphological Evolution of a Mouth Bar Attacked by Waves, 1st paragraph, “Strong waves with a large angle deflect the river mouth, leading to a jet that flows parallel to the shoreline. In this case large quantities of sediments are deposited between the jet and the shoreline, producing a swash bar that extends along the coast (deflected mouth case, Figure 3).”, Nardin et al. (Pg. 6 left col., “Therefore an intermediate angle must exist for which: i) jet spreading is limited, thus maintaining a fast and confined jet that carries all the sediments away from the coastline; ii) the wave angle is low enough to trigger high bottom shear stresses that keep the sediment in suspension thus favoring sediment delivery far from the mouth.”, Nardin et al. (Pg. 1, sec. 2 Methods, 3rd paragraph, “We simulate bar formation in a basin of 72 by 44 computational cells with different sizes, ranging from 15mto 30m (Figure 1a). The basin is horizontally planar with an initial uniform depth of 3 m. A rectangular river channel with width, B, of 90 m and depth of 3 m is carved into a sandy shoreline along the eastern boundary of the grid, extending 100 m basinward”)];
Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al., Jiang et al. and Nardin et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing currents within a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al. and Jiang et al. of parameterizing a wind strength, and inferring from the wind speed a wave base water depth and a wave breaking water depth by incorporating modelling an offshore current part and, if the direction of the wind-induced waved forms an angle between 1 and 250 with the shoreline, a longshore current part of the wind-induced current; determining a direction of the offshore current as the direction of the wind- induced waves; determining a direction of the longshore current as a shore-parallel direction; and longshore current part from the wind strength, the wave base water depth and the wave breaking water depth as taught by Nardin et al. for the purpose of analyzing the effects of waves on mouth bar formation and transported sediments.
Sun et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of Hunt et al. in further view of Jiang et al. in further view of Nardin et al. teaches modelling an offshore current part and, if the direction of the wind-induced waved forms an angle between 1 and 250 with the shoreline, a longshore current part of the wind-induced current; determining a direction of the offshore current as the direction of the wind- induced waves; determining a direction of the longshore current as a shore-parallel direction; and longshore current part from the wind strength, the wave base water depth and the wave breaking water depth.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Nardin et al. teaches that by analyzing the effects of waves on mouth bar formation and transported sediments, the ability to know the wave climate (height, period, and direction) can be accomplished, where the evolution of the mouth bars formation can be determined (Nardin et al., Pg. 6, sec. 5 Conclusions, 1st – 2nd paragraph “Our results show that the wave climate, etc.”).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al., Jiang et al. and Nardin et al. discloses the method of claim 5 above, and Li et al. further discloses “computing an energy of the offshore plume current at the cell” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, left col., 1st paragraph “Since the horizontal density gradient is strongest on the offshore side of the plume’s center, the strongest along-shelf current is found at a location that is 65 km away from the coastline.”, Li et al. Pg. 6 right col., 1st paragraph, “To better understand the tidal effects on the plume dynamics, we examine the cross-shelf momentum equation, etc.”, Eqn. 1)];
“the energy of the offshore plume current being a function of the distance of the cell relative to the shoreline, such that the offshore plume current energy increases from zero at the shoreline to its maximum value at a distance from the shore corresponding to a water depth equal to the wave breaking water depth” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, left col., 1st paragraph, “The plume center lies in waters of about 35-m depth and is separated from the coastline by about 55 km. Due to strong tidal mixing, a bottom boundary layer develops, as shown by vertical isopycnals in Figures 4d and 4g. The boundary layer is about 20 m thick during the spring tide and a few meters thick during the neap tide. Correspondingly, the surface plume salinity is higher during the spring than during the neap. Since the horizontal density gradient is strongest on the offshore side of the plume’s center, the strongest along-shelf current is found at a location that is 65 km away from the coastline”, Fig. 4)];
“and its value remains equal to its maximum value at a greater distance from the shoreline” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, left col., 1st paragraph, “Correspondingly, the surface plume salinity is higher during the spring than during the neap. Since the horizontal density gradient is strongest on the offshore side of the plume’s center, the strongest along-shelf current is found at a location that is 65 km away from the coastline…… The coastal current is weaker during the spring tide than during the neap tide (Figures 4e and 4h), since stronger spring mixing produces a thicker bottom boundary layer and stronger vertical momentum flux.”)];
“and inferring an energy of the offshore bottom current at the cell from the velocity of the offshore plume current at the cell” as [Li et al. (Pg. 6, right col., 1st paragraph, “To better understand the tidal effects on the plume dynamics, we examine the cross-shelf momentum equation, etc.”, Eqn. 1)];
“the energy of the offshore bottom current at the cell being a function of the depth of the cell, such that the offshore bottom current energy is equal to the offshore plume current velocity at a water depth of zero” as [Li et al. (Pgs. 5-6 right col., last paragraph, “The along-shelf jet is surface intensified with substantial vertical shear such that the along-shelf velocity is reduced to zero at the bottom boundary (Figure 4b). No significant boundary layer is formed near the bottom (Figure 4c). These features are similar to the surface-trapped plume as simulated in Yankovsky and Chapman [1997].”, Fig. 3, Fig. 3 shows how bottom surface currents are at the plume of the Changjiang River when there are different tides and no tide)];
“and decreases until reaching a value of zero for a water depth of at least the wave base water depth.” as [Li et al. (Pgs. 5-6 right col., last paragraph, “The along-shelf jet is surface intensified with substantial vertical shear such that the along-shelf velocity is reduced to zero at the bottom boundary (Figure 4b).”)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al., Jiang et al. and Nardin et al. discloses the method of claim 5 above, and Li et al. further discloses “computing an energy of the longshore plume current at the cell” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5 right col., “In Run TA, the plume structure is much better organized and features little upstream penetration. The plume moves in the southeastward direction near the river mouth. It then turns right to form a strong coastal current outside the island chain and along a path parallel to the China East Coast. Since tides in the East China Sea have a strong fortnightly cycle, we take two snapshots: one at the neap tide; another at the spring tide.”, Li et al. Pg. 11, left col., 1st paragraph, “As shown in Figure 10, most of the particles are swept in the southeast direction near the river mouth and then are advected downstream along a path parallel to the coastline.”, Fig. 3, With the current flowing parallel to the coastline, demonstrates that there is a longshore plume current, since longshore current is the flow of the current parallel to the shoreline. Also, with the average tidal wave for the surface currents being known as shown in Fig. 3 of the Li et al. reference, demonstrates that the energy for the longshore plume current is calculated, since the in the Run TA simulation, the plume flows in a southeastward direction before turning right to form a strong coastal current outside the island chain and along a path parallel to the China East Coast)];
“the energy of the longshore plume current being a function of the distance of the cell relative to the shoreline, such that it increases from zero at the shoreline to its maximum value at a distance from the shore corresponding to a water depth equal to the wave breaking water depth” as [Li et al. (Pg. 11, left col., 1st paragraph, “To illustrate Isobe’s mechanism for the Changjiang River plume, we release a number of passive particles across the mouth of Changjiang estuary (21 particles per hour from day 100 to 130) and track them over time in Run TA. As shown in Figure 10, most of the particles are swept in the southeast direction near the river mouth and then are advected downstream along a path parallel to the coastline.”, Li et al. Pg. 11, right col., “Particles released during the neap tide experience less vertical diffusion but more horizontal advection. Hence they spread out over a large area and more of them move further downstream.”)];
“and its value is zero at a greater distance from the shoreline” as [Li et al. (Pgs. 5-6, right col., last paragraph “Freshwater in Run NA remains attached to the coast with isohalines nearly horizontal near the coast but sloping at the plume front (Figure 4a). The along-shelf jet is surface intensified with substantial vertical shear such that the along-shelf velocity is reduced to zero at the bottom boundary (Figure 4b).”)];
“and inferring an energy of the longshore bottom current at the cell from the energy of the longshore plume current at the cell” as [Li et al. (Pg. 5, sec. 3.1 Plume Structure and Dynamics, 1st paragraph, right col., “The plume moves in the southeastward direction near the river mouth. It then turns right to form a strong coastal current outside the island chain and along a path parallel to the China East Coast”, Li et al. Pg. 11, left col., 1st paragraph, “As shown in Figure 10, most of the particles are swept in the southeast direction near the river mouth and then are advected downstream along a path parallel to the coastline.”)];
“the energy of the longshore bottom current at the cell being a function of the depth of the cell, such that the longshore bottom current energy is equal to the longshore plume current velocity at a water depth of zero” as [Li et al. (Pg. 3, sec. 2 Model Description and Tidal Solution, right col., “At the upstream boundary of the Changjiang River estuary, a momentum boundary condition is imposed on the depth-averaged velocity. The model is initialized with no flow and a flat sea surface. The initial scalar distributions are the uniform salinity of 35 psu and uniform temperature of 20℃ in the shelf region. To avoid sharp horizontal density gradients which may lead to numerical instability, salinity in the Changjiang River estuary varies linearly from the oceanic to zero salinity within a distance of 200 km”)];
“and decreases until reaching a value of zero for a water depth of at least the wave base water depth.” as [Li et al. (Pgs. 5-6 right col., last paragraph, “The along-shelf jet is surface intensified with substantial vertical shear such that the along-shelf velocity is reduced to zero at the bottom boundary (Figure 4b).”)];
17. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of Hunt et al. in further view of Enchery (FR 2969206).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While the combination of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. teaches modelling a topography of a sedimentary area and in view of operating a geological reservoir of the sedimentary area, Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the modelling of the topography of the sedimentary area further comprises recovering oil or gas from the sedimentary area in accordance with the updated topography of the geological gridded model.”
Enchery discloses “wherein the modelling of the topography of the sedimentary area further comprises recovering oil or gas from the sedimentary area in accordance with the updated topography of the geological gridded model.” as [Enchery (Pg. 2, 3rd paragraph “The petrophysical properties (lithofacies, porosities, permeabilities ...) are generated on a first grid and all of these data constitute the geological model of the reservoir…..This simulation makes it possible to calculate production data at the wells but also pressure maps, water saturations, oil and gas at different dates.”, Enchery Pg. 3, 1st full paragraph “the flow model is modified to minimize a difference between the measured production data and the simulated production data, and to minimize a difference between the measured seismic data and the simulated seismic data. According to the invention, the flow model can be modified by modifying petrophysical property values associated with each cell of the second grid, the model with the modified values is used to define an optimum scheme for exploiting the underground environment, etc.”)];
Sun et al., Li et al., Hunt et al. and Enchery are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing currents within a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sun et al., Li et al. and Hunt et al. of modelling a topography of a sedimentary area and in view of operating a geological reservoir of the sedimentary area by incorporating wherein the modelling of the topography of the sedimentary area further comprises recovering oil or gas from the sedimentary area in accordance with the updated topography of the geological gridded model as taught by Enchery for the purpose of operating underground reservoirs.
Sun et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of Hunt et al. in further view of Enchery teaches wherein the modelling of the topography of the sedimentary area further comprises recovering oil or gas from the sedimentary area in accordance with the updated topography of the geological gridded model.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Enchery teaches that by modeling the operation of underground reservoirs, the ability to analyze the production of the reservoir can be accomplished. This allows a user to compare predicted production of a reservoir to actual measurements of a reservoir (Enchery Abstract, Pg. Description, 1st paragraph “The present invention relates to the technical field of the petroleum industry, etc.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Massonnat et al. (WO 2020229865) is a method of determining a width between lateral boundaries of a respective river jet of the sub-current, where a direction and velocity of the sub-current is determined in each cell located within the respective river jet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights