DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 28 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a machine-readable storage hardware storage device includes embodiments that are not directed to any of the statutory categories such as transitory forms of signal transmission (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection I).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (MPEP 2106, subsection III), claim 1 is directed to a method or process and thus falls within a statutory category.
Per step 2A, prong 1, Claim 1 recites using pyrolysis data for the source rock sample to correct the porosity data obtained from a scanning electron microscopy image of the source rock sample (OsEM) to determine the adjusted porosity (AdjSEM) of the source rock sample, wherein the pyrolysis data comprise at least one member selected from the group consisting of a volume productivity index (PI,,l) of the source rock sample and a corrected volume productivity index (PI corrvo) of the source rock sample. The correction is accomplished using a mathematical calculation, and claim 1 falls into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per Step 2A, prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 2-4 and 8 only recite further details of the abstract idea and also do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-4 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites the additional element that the source rock sample is cleaned using a solvent. This limitation is a field of use limitation because it does not amount to more than generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.059(h)). This limitation is not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason. Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5 and do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore claims 5-7 are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 1. Both claims 9 and 10 recite a machine-readable hardware storage device. Claim 10 recites a processing device. Both of these additional elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply the exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 9 and 10 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2013/0094716 to Carpio et al. (Carpio).
Claim 1
With regard to using pyrolysis data for the source rock sample to correct the porosity data obtained from a scanning electron microscopy image of the source rock sample (ϕSEM) to determine the adjusted porosity (ϕAdj SEM) of the source rock sample, Carpio teaches capturing images with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with a mask developed other images (Fig. 1, scanning electron beam column 101, detectors 112, 114; par. 39; Fig. 6, step 101; par. 51).
With regard to wherein the pyrolysis data comprise at least one member selected from the group consisting of a volume productivity index (PIvol) of the source rock sample and a corrected volume productivity index (PI_corrvol) of the source rock sample, Carpio teaches that the masks are developed from two dimensional substrate images (pars. 50, 51).
Claim 2
Carpio teaches that before obtaining the pyrolysis data, the source rock sample is not cleaned using a solvent; and the pyrolysis data comprise PIvol (pars. 27-39, creating the volume using the backscatter electron two-dimensional substrate images).
Claim 8
Carpio teaches that the source rock sample comprises a first subsample and a second subsample; the SEM image of the source rock sample is obtained from the first subsample; and the pyrolysis data are obtained from the second subsample (par. 51, SEM of rock samples, some rock samples are analyzed to allocate phase locations in the images).
Claim 9
Carpio teaches One or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations (par. 62).
Claim 10
Carpio teaches one or more processing devices; and one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by the one or more processing devices to perform operations (par. 62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpio in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0197526 to Leyte Guerrero et al. (Guerrero).
Claim 5
Carpio teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 5 depends. Carpio does not teach that before obtaining the pyrolysis data, the source rock sample is cleaned using a solvent; and the pyrolysis data comprise PI_corrvol. Guerrero teaches cleaning a rock sample before a measurement (pars. 124-126, 178). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the image generation, as taught by Carpio, to include cleaning the sample, as taught by Guerrero, because then the measurement of interest would not have been impeded by other substances.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0366793 to Eustaquio Lopes et al. teaches removing oil and salts from rock samples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857