DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:”[..]the first measurement and/or the second measurement are spectroscopic[..]” should be changed to” [..]the first measurement and/or the second measurement is/ are spectroscopic[..]” . Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/23/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, Claims 1 and 3-7 has been amended. Regarding claims 2: Cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1 and 3-7 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1 and 3-7 fall within category of device.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-7
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining the amount of excess silica.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer instructions stored therein which, when executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to:
a. receive a first measurement indicative of an amount of silica in a rock sample and a second measurement indicative of an amount of zirconium in the rock sample;
b. determine, using the second measurement and a predetermined relationship stored in a memory between measurements indicative of amounts of terrigenous silica and measurements indicative of amounts of zirconium for rock samples from a sedimentary basin, an amount of terrigenous silica in the rock sample; and
c. determine an amount of excess silica in the rock sample based on a difference between the first measurement and the determined amount of terrigenous silica.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation” determine [..]an amount of terrigenous silica in the rock sample; determine an amount of excess silica[..] ” is a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The first additional element is “receive a first measurement indicative of an amount of silica in a rock sample and a second measurement indicative of an amount of zirconium in the rock sample” This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use/ data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer instructions stored therein which, when executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claims “rock sample”, generic sample and “computer, processor” is generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 3-7
Dependent claims 3-7 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 10 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-7 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples, claims 3 (field of use/data gathering) insignificant extra solution activity.
For examples, claims 4-6 directed to extended abstract idea of mental steps.
For examples, claim 7 is generic sample of well understood, routine and conventional .
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 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (Quartz types and origins in the paleozoic Wufeng-Longmaxi Formations,
Eastern Sichuan Basin, China: Implications for porosity preservation in shale
reservoirs, 2019)
Regarding Claim 1. Dong teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer instructions stored therein which, when executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to(SEM: page 63, section: Mythology ; Abstract; Processor is an inherent property of the system):
a. receive a first measurement indicative of an amount of silica in a rock sample and a second measurement indicative of an amount of zirconium in the rock sample(fig. 12A; page 70);
b. determine, using the second measurement and a predetermined relationship stored in a memory between measurements indicative of amounts of terrigenous silica and measurements indicative of amounts of zirconium for rock samples from a sedimentary basin, an amount of terrigenous silica in the rock sample(detrital trend: fig. 12A, page 70; A positive correlation between SiO2 and Zr implies that the detrital quartz provides the silica source, whereas most of the samples from the upper part plot along the detrital trend (Fig. 12A), implying that the biogenic silica provides the main source to authigenic quartz in the lower part, and most of the quartz is of a detrital origin in the upper part (i.e. excess silica): section 5.1, page 70 ); and
c. determine an amount of excess silica in the rock sample based on a difference between the first measurement and the determined amount of terrigenous silica(Excess silica; fig. 12A; page 70; A positive correlation between SiO2 and Zr implies that the detrital quartz provides the silica source, whereas most of the samples from the upper part plot along the detrital trend (Fig. 12A), implying that the biogenic silica provides the main source to authigenic quartz in the lower part, and most of the quartz is of a detrital origin in the upper part (i.e. excess silica): section 5.1, page 70).
PNG
media_image1.png
239
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3. Dong the first measurement and/or the second measurement are spectroscopic measurements comprising X-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurements obtained from the rock sample. (SEM images: abstract; X-ray fluorescence: section:3(Mythology)).
Regarding Claim 4. Dong further teaches the predetermined relationship between measurements indicative of amounts of terrigenous silica and measurements indicative of amounts of zirconium for rock samples is a linear relationship determined from measurements of terrigenous silica and zirconium for a plurality of reference rock samples from the sedimentary basin (Shale samples: abstract; detrital trend: fig. 12(A); section 5.1; basin: conclusion).
Regarding Claim 5. Dong further teaches determining the amount of terrigenous silica in the rock samplesample as one of a mass fraction and a volume fraction using the second measurement and the predetermined relationship(Sio2(%), Zr(ppm), detrital trend: fig. 12(A) ); and
determining the amount of excess silica in the rock sample comprises calculating an excess silica content of in the rock sample as one of a mass fraction and a volume fraction based on a difference between a silica content of the rock sample indicated by the first measurement and the calculated terrigenous silica content (Sio2(%), fig. 12(A), section 5.1)
Regarding Claim 6. Dong further teaches the relationship between measurements indicative of amounts of terrigenous silica and measurements indicative of amounts of zirconium for rock samples is a ratio between amounts of terrigenous silica and measurements indicative of amounts of zirconium for rock samples (abstract; detrital trend :fig. 12(A);sections: 5.1-5.2).
Regarding Claim 7. Dong further teaches the rock sample is a cuttings sample(abstract. Section: 3).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it, see page 8-10.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the amened claim limitations represent extended form of abstract idea which is further directed to abstract idea of mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper).
In view of the the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 102 rejection, the applicant argus that the cited prior art, Dong does not teach the amened limitations.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the Examiner rejection based on BRI of claim limitation and Dong teaches such amened limitation as “a. receive a first measurement indicative of an amount of silica in a rock sample and a second measurement indicative of an amount of zirconium in the rock sample(fig. 12A; page 70);
b. determine, using the second measurement and a predetermined relationship stored in a memory between measurements indicative of amounts of terrigenous silica and measurements indicative of amounts of zirconium for rock samples from a sedimentary basin, an amount of terrigenous silica in the rock sample(detrital trend: fig. 12A, page 70; A positive correlation between SiO2 and Zr implies that the detrital quartz provides the silica source, whereas most of the samples from the upper part plot along the detrital trend (Fig. 12A), implying that the biogenic silica provides the main source to authigenic quartz in the lower part, and most of the quartz is of a detrital origin in the upper part (i.e. excess silica): section 5.1, page 70 ); and
c. determine an amount of excess silica in the rock sample based on a difference between the first measurement and the determined amount of terrigenous silica(Excess silica; fig. 12A; page 70; A positive correlation between SiO2 and Zr implies that the detrital quartz provides the silica source, whereas most of the samples from the upper part plot along the detrital trend (Fig. 12A), implying that the biogenic silica provides the main source to authigenic quartz in the lower part, and most of the quartz is of a detrital origin in the upper part (i.e. excess silica): section 5.1, page 70).
PNG
media_image1.png
239
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. As such 102 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Boyle et al. (Rapid elemental analysis of sediment samples by isotope source XRF, 2000)
b) Linda et al. (High-resolution X-ray fluorescence core scanning analysis of Les Echets (France) sedimentary sequence: new insights from chemical proxies, 2010).
c) Gettemy et al. (US 2021/0349070) disclose a method for analyzing a rock sample includes segmenting a digital image volume corresponding to an image of the rock sample,
d) Hurley et al. (US 8,909,508) disclose Laser scanning fluorescence microscopy (LSFM) provides a high-resolution (about 0.25 micron) technique to build 3D digital rock models. Confocal and multiphoton techniques are most common, although the emerging field of super-resolution fluorescence microscopy may provide improved images of rocks.
e) Wright et al. (Application of Inorganic Whole Rock Geochemistry to Shale Resource Plays, 2010)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 on 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights