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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 Rejection.
Claims 19-33 are Canceled claims.
Claims 34-48 are Withdrawn Claims.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 Rejection.
35 USC § 112 Rejections
Based on the changes introduced by amendment of (03/06/2026), the 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of Claims 21-23 is withdrawn.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed (03/06/2026) with respect to pending claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended. The arguments addressed to the 101 and 103 rejections are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim 1 and the 101 rejection are not persuasive because the amended limitations do not add additional elements to the claim, such as a particular machine or a particular real-world transformation. Instead, the amended limitations amount to further detail of the abstract idea, the determination of various properties from various quantities via some mental process or mathematical calculation.
Applicant's arguments with respect to pending claim 1 and the 103 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive because the new ground of rejection includes the Gulati (CN102893183A) reference in order to address the amended limitations which were not taught by Prioul. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of Prioul and Gulati (CN102893183A), hereinafter Gulati. See below rejection for full detail.
Arguments
The Applicant argues (page 11, line 27 through page 12, lines 19):
“Since Prioul does not provide any specific details of Fint at all, we submit that Prioul does not, more particularly, disclose that any aspect of Fint corresponds to dynamic mechanical property parameters, such as velocities of acoustic waves or acoustic wave travel times in each of two or more constituent phases in a rock sample, as would be required by claim 1 (i).
Moreover, there is no disclosure in Prioul that any of the Cij to be calculated corresponds to a dynamic mechanical property of a rock sample, as would be required by claim 1 (ii). Indeed, the Cij in Prioul are clearly described as the elastic moduli (see, e.g., paragraph [0033]), which are known to be static mechanical property parameters.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Prioul that the method involves first determining one or more dynamic mechanical properties of a rock sample and then determining a static mechanical property of the rock sample based on the one or more determined dynamic mechanical properties, as would be required by claim 1 (iii). Instead, Prioul discloses determining the static Cij directly from Vmi by application of Fint. Prioul does not disclose associating dynamic mechanical property parameters with specific constituent phases of a rock sample and then determining a mechanical property of the rock sample taking into account both the respective amount of the constituent phases and the associated dynamic mechanical property parameters; determining a dynamic mechanical property of a rock sample taking into account a respective amount of each of two or more constituent phases in the rock sample (for example, by application of Cij = Fint (Vᵐᵢ)); and/or determining one or more dynamic mechanical properties of the rock sample, and determining a static mechanical property of the rock sample based on the one or more determined dynamic mechanical properties.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees with applicant that Prioul does not disclose associating dynamic mechanical property parameters with specific constituent phases of a rock sample and then determining a mechanical property of the rock sample taking into account both the respective amount of the constituent phases and the associated dynamic mechanical property parameters.
However, the new reference of Gulati (CN102893183A), hereinafter Gulati discloses the new limitation. Please see the rejection below.
The Gulati and Prioul arts are both related to mechanical properties of a rock sample and measuring the degree of deformation of the rock sample.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claim 1 all include abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) shown below.
“1. A method comprising determining a mechanical property of a rock sample taking into account (a) a respective amount of each of two or more constituent phases in the rock sample and (b) a corresponding mechanical property parameter associated with each of the two or more constituent phases, wherein:
(i) the mechanical property parameters associated with each of the two or more
constituent phases are dynamic mechanical property parameters, such as velocities of acoustic waves or acoustic wave travel times in each of the two or more constituent phases;
(ii) the mechanical property of the rock sample is a dynamic mechanical property of the rock sample, such as such a velocity of an acoustic wave or an acoustic wave travel time in the rock sample; and/or
(iii) the method comprises determining a static mechanical property of the rock sample by: determining one or more dynamic mechanical properties of the rock sample; and
determining the static mechanical property of the rock sample based on the one or more determined dynamic mechanical properties.”
The highlighted steps is considered to be equivalent of a mathematical concept and mathematical steps.
Under step 2A prong 2,
The claims do not comprise any particular field of use and claims do not direct to any practical application.
The claim 1 does not comprises any additional steps or elements.
Under step 2B
The claim 1 does not comprise any additional steps or elements.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7, 11, and 13 merely extend the details of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, more particularly mathematical calculations or mental steps as recited.
The new amendments of claim 1 just additionally describes the type of data which is use for abstract idea.
The dependent claims 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15 just additionally describe the type of data.
The dependent claim 9, comprising describing the type of rock samples, which is insignificant additional steps/element.
Claims 16-18 additionally comprise the computer.
The claims do not improve the general functionality of a computer. The claims only incorporate the computer as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea. In this instance, the improvement lies in the abstract idea itself, and a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
Claims 17 and 18 additionally comprise the computer program, which can be consider a generic processing component, and is also itself non-statutory subject matter in claim 17. (Claims drawn to “a computer program" per se are not in one of the statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03.) This can be fixed by reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program comprising instructions …” in claim 17.
As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer components (processor and memory), or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs, v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are drawn to “a computer-readable medium". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: "A non-transitory computer-readable medium …".
Therefore claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prioul et al., (US Pub.20170235016A1), hereinafter Prioul in view of Gulati (CN102893183A), hereinafter Gulati.
Regarding Claim 1, Prioul discloses a method comprising determining a mechanical property of a rock sample (method of determining subterranean stress properties, claim 1) taking into account
(a) a respective amount of each of two or more constituent phases in the rock sample (the measurements of the subterranean rock formation surrounding the first wellbore includes spectroscopy log data, claim 4; one or more laboratory measurements on core samples from well a can be used... In block 210, subset of inorganic and organic mineralogy weight fractions are measured using spectroscopy logs, para 0038; also see Fig. 2); and
(b) a corresponding mechanical property parameter associated with each of the two or more constituent phases (In block 212, a subset of the five TI anisotropic elastic moduli Cij are measured using sonic multipole logs para 0040; In block 214, using data from blocks 210 and 212, the rock physics transform Cij=Fint(Vm i) is built that uses the volume fractions of matrix minerals to compute several elastic moduli of an anisotropic VTI rock, in particular, C33 and C13... further detail is given below on how to build and calibrate the model., para 0041; also see Fig. 2).
Prioul does not discloses(i) the mechanical property parameters associated with each of the two or more constituent phases are dynamic mechanical property parameters, such as velocities of acoustic waves or acoustic wave travel times in each of the two or more constituent phases;
(ii) the mechanical property of the rock sample is a dynamic mechanical property of the
rock sample, such as such a velocity of an acoustic wave or an acoustic wave travel time in the rock sample; and/or
(iii) the method comprises determining a static mechanical property of the rock sample
by: determining one or more dynamic mechanical properties of the rock sample; and
determining the static mechanical property of the rock sample based on the one or more
determined dynamic mechanical properties.
The Examiner chooses the limitations for further rejection: “(i) the mechanical property parameters associated with each of the two or more constituent phases are dynamic mechanical property parameters, such as velocities of acoustic waves or acoustic wave travel times in each of the two or more constituent phases;
(ii) the mechanical property of the rock sample is a dynamic mechanical property of the
rock sample, such as such a velocity of an acoustic wave or an acoustic wave travel time in the rock sample” from alternative limitations of claim 1.
Gulati disclose (i) the mechanical property parameters associated with each of the two or more constituent phases are dynamic mechanical property parameters (para [005], where rock geological properties (e.g. porosity, lithology, saturation) and its corresponding elastic and seismic properties (e.g. elastic modulus, velocity, P wave impedance, s-wave impedance). by using rock physics modeling, those skilled in the art can predict elastic (seismic) properties from geology condition, or using rock physics inversion can be obtained from elastic (seismic) forecasting, e.g., (P (Primary) and S (Secondary) wave velocities directly correspond to the physical state (or phase) of the rock through which they travel, including its elasticity, density, and whether it is solid or liquids), such as velocities of acoustic waves in each of the two or more constituent phases (para [0050], where combination of mechanical properties and the rock physics tables. ..rock physics data 210B includes property list according to the following aspects of the acoustic compressional wave velocity);
(ii) the mechanical property of the rock sample is a dynamic mechanical property of the
rock sample, such as such a velocity of an acoustic wave in the rock sample (para [0050], where Vp, Vs represents a P wave and S wave velocity) to derive out or can use P wave impedance per wave impedance is approximated. Once a deposit identification out of source rock type (i.e., rock as a source of hydrocarbon potential), types of rocks can be obtained substantially lithology and geological granularity combination of mechanical properties and the rock physics tables. logging 210C (including those obtained by existing well seismic data) through well, can identify the rock type. rock physics data 210B includes property list according to the following aspects of the acoustic compressional wave velocity, shear wave velocity, brittleness, Young ' s modulus, and across different rock phase velocity change of the relationship).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide velocities of acoustic waves in each of the two or more constituent phases, as taught by Gulati into Prioul in order to more accurately identify damage/cracking of the sample and analysis of the fluid presence.
Regarding Claim 2, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 1, further Prioul disclose wherein determining the mechanical property of the rock sample comprises evaluating a weighted sum of the mechanical property parameters associated with each of the two or more constituent phases, the mechanical property parameter associated with each constituent phase being weighted in the weighted sum by the amount of said constituent phase in the rock sample (The effective medium elastic coefficient C33 is given by Backus (1962) as the Reuss average of the individual components: C 33 =<c 33-1>-1=1/ Si=1 MVi m/c 33 i where c33 denotes the elastic coefficient of an individual component of the rock composition and the brackets <.> denote the volume weighted average of the quantity inside using the volume Vi m obtained from the M mineralogy measurements., para [0058]).
Regarding Claim 3, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 1 comprising:
further Prioul disclose determining the respective amount of each of the two or more constituent phases in the rock sample; and
calculating the mechanical property of the rock sample taking into account (a) the respective determined amount of each of the two or more constituent phases in the rock sample and (b) the corresponding mechanical property parameter associated with each of the two or more constituent phases (In block 212, a subset of the five TI anisotropic elastic moduli Cij are measured using sonic multipole logs' para [0040]; In block 214, using data from blocks 210 and 212, the rock physics transform
Cij=Fint(Vm i) is built that uses the volume fractions of matrix minerals to compute several elastic moduli of an anisotropic VTI rock, in particular, C33 and C13... further detail is given below on how to build and calibrate the model., para 0041; also see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 3, further Prioul disclose wherein determining the respective amount of each of the two or more constituent phases in the rock sample comprises determining the amount of at least one constituent phase in the rock sample by a spectroscopic method, for example by an infra-red spectroscopic method such as Fourier Transform Infra-red (FTIR) spectroscopy (a subset of inorganic and organic mineralogy volume fractions Vm i is measured using DRIFTS (Diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy) technique on cuttings. In block 124, the rock physics model Cij=Fint(Vm i) is used to compute anisotropic elastic properties from mineralogy volumes, para [0037]).
Regarding Claim 5, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 4, further Prioul disclose wherein determining the amount of the at least one constituent phase in the rock sample by the spectroscopic method comprises:
obtaining a spectroscopic measurement from the rock sample (the measurements of the subterranean rock formation surrounding the first wellbore includes spectroscopy log data, claim 4; one or more laboratory measurements on core samples from well A can be used... In block 210, subset of inorganic and organic mineralogy
weight fractions are measured using spectroscopy logs, para 0038; also see Fig. 2);and
determining the amount of the at least one constituent phase in the rock sample based on the spectroscopic measurement and a spectroscopic calibration model which defines a relationship between spectroscopic measurements and constituent phase amounts for rock samples (In block 214, using data from blocks 210 and 212, the rock physics transform Cij=Fint(Vm i) is built that uses the volume fractions of matrix minerals to compute several elastic moduli of an anisotropic VTI rock, in particular, C33 and C13... further detail is given below on how to build and calibrate the
model., para 0041; also see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 3, further Prioul disclose wherein the at least one constituent phase is a solid constituent phase such as a mineralogical phase or an organic phase(In block 212, a subset of the five TI anisotropic elastic moduli Cij are measured using sonic multipole logs' para [0040]; In block 214, using data from blocks 210 and 212, the rock physics transform Cij=Fint(Vm i) is built that uses the volume fractions of matrix minerals to compute several elastic moduli of an anisotropic VTI rock, in particular, C33 and C13... further detail is given below on how to build and calibrate the model., para 0041; also see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 1, further Prioul disclose wherein the rock sample is a cuttings sample (a subset of inorganic and organic mineralogy volume fractions Vm i is measured using DRIFTS (Diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy) technique on cuttings. In block 124, the rock physics model Cij=Fint(Vm i) is used to compute anisotropic elastic properties from mineralogy volumes, para [0037]).
Regarding Claim 10, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 1, further Prioul disclose wherein the amount of a constituent phase in the rock sample is a parameter indicative of a volume of the said constituent phase in the rock sample(In block 212, a subset of the five TI anisotropic elastic moduli Cij are measured using sonic multipole logs' para [0040]; In block 214, using data from blocks 210 and 212, the rock physics transform Cij=Fint(Vm i) is built that uses the volume fractions of matrix minerals to compute several elastic moduli of an anisotropic VTI rock, in particular, C33 and C13... further detail is given below on how to build and calibrate the model., para 0041; also see Fig. 2), such as a volume or a volume fraction of the said constituent phase in the rock sample(subset of inorganic and organic mineralogy volume fractions Vm i is measured using DRIFTS technique, para [0037]).
Regarding Claim 11, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 1, further Prioul disclose wherein the mechanical property of the rock sample is an elastic modulus such as a Young’s modulus, a shear modulus or a bulk modulus, or a dimensionless mechanical property ratio such as a Poisson’s ratio(calibrated models includes a rock physics model that relates mineralogy to elasticity, and wherein the determining of the one or more stress properties is based in part on applying the mineralogy data to the calibrated rock physics model to determine elasticity properties (such as elastic moduli), para [0007]).
Regarding Claim 16, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 1, further Prioul disclose wherein the steps of claim 1 is carried out by a computer(Such computer instructions can be stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g., memory) and executed by the computer processor, para [0078]).
Regarding Claim 17, Prioul and Gulati discloses, a computer program comprising instructions which, further Prioul disclose when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1 (Some of the methods and processes described above, as listed above, can be implemented as computer program logic for use with the computer processor, para [0078]).
Regarding Claim 18, Prioul and Gulati discloses claim 17, further Prioul disclose a computer-readable medium storing the computer program according to claim 17 (Such computer instructions can be stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g., memory) and executed by the computer processor, para [0078]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prioul in view of Gulati, as applied above and further in view of KUILA et al. “Total porosity measurement in gas shales by the water immersion porosimetery (WIP) method.”, hereinafter Kuila.
Regarding Claim 7, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 3, further Prioul disclose wherein determining the respective amount of each of the two or more constituent phases in the rock sample (the measurements of the subterranean rock formation surrounding the first wellbore includes spectroscopy log data, claim 4; one or more laboratory measurements on core samples from well A can be used... In block 210, subset of inorganic and organic mineralogy weight fractions are measured using spectroscopy logs, para 0038; also see Fig. 2) comprises:
Prioul and Gulati do not disclose:
determining a parameter indicative of the porosity of the rock sample, for example by a water immersion porosimetry (WIP) method; and
determining the amount of at least one liquid phase in the rock sample based on the parameter indicative of the porosity of the rock sample.
Kuila discloses determining a parameter indicative of the porosity of the rock sample, for example by a water immersion porosimetry (WIP) method (Total porosity measurement in gas shales by the water immersion porosimetry (WIP) method, Title); and
determining the amount of at least one liquid phase in the rock sample (the submerged weight of saturated sample in DI [deionized] water (SatWt_Sub) were measured, page 1119, section 3.3; also see Fig. 5) based on the parameter indicative of the porosity of the rock sample (The porosity (фwir) of any sample measured by WIP is determined by the relationship:
The porosity measured by WIP is the total water accessible porosity, including water adsorbed on clay surfaces, which includes the interlayer space in the expandable clay minerals and external surfaces of crystallites in non-expandable clay species (i.e. clay-bound water), see page 1119, section 3.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Prioul with the disclosing of Kuila for the purpose of using a water immersion porosimetry in order to provide a safe, simple, low-cost, and non-destructive method for measuring a material's total porosity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prioul, and Gulati as applied above and further in view of Wood (US Pub. 20090103677), [hereinafter Wood].
Regarding Claim 8, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the at least one liquid phase is a hydrocarbon phase or an aqueous phase such as water.
Wood discloses the at least one liquid phase is a hydrocarbon phase or an aqueous phase such as water(para [0007], where carbonate rock texture produces spatial variations in permeability and capillary bound water volumes); (para [0015], where NMR logging tools use large magnets to strongly polarize hydrogen nuclei in water and hydrocarbons).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Prioul and Gulati with the disclosing of Wood for the purpose of using liquid phase is a hydrocarbon phase or an aqueous phase such as water to provide more efficient extraction process.
Claim 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prioul in view of Gulati, as applied above and further in view of Shi (CN103257081A), [hereinafter Shi].
Regarding Claim 12, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 1 further Prioul and Gulati do not disclose comprising taking into account an anisotropy factor associated with the rock sample when determining the mechanical property.
Shi discloses comprising taking into account an anisotropy factor associated with the rock sample when determining the mechanical property (para [0175], where mineral rock mechanical properties, composition and orientation arrangement of mineral is affecting one factor strength of rock anisotropy; para [0177], where the various rock mechanical properties as a function of fluid saturation amplitude and rock mineral components, structure, cementing and pore fracture density comparison, comparison result display, different lithology anisotropic strength and porosity fracture density has a certain correlation,…, condition with small Young modulus change amplitude of possibly
a large Poisson's ratio and Biot change amplitude. anisotropic and incomplete corresponding pore fracture density, indicates differences in different directions pore fracture density is not the only factor anisotropy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Prioul and Gulati with the disclosing of Shi for the purpose of using anisotropy factor associated with the rock sample to improves hydraulic fracturing design.
Regarding Claim 13, Prioul and Gulati discloses the method according to claim 12, but Prioul and Gulati do not disclose further comprising determining the anisotropy factor associated with the rock sample.
Shi do not explicitly discloses determining the anisotropy factor associated with the rock sample, but Shi discloses how the orientation arrangement of mineral is affecting one factor strength of rock anisotropy (see para [00175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Prioul and Gulati with the disclosing of Shi for the purpose of determining anisotropy factor associated with the rock sample to improves hydraulic fracturing design.
Regarding Claim 14, Prioul and Gulati and Shi disclose the method according to claim 13, but Prioul and Gulati do not disclose wherein the anisotropy factor is a mechanical anisotropy factor.
Shi discloses the anisotropy factor is a mechanical anisotropy factor (para [0175], where mineral rock mechanical properties, composition and orientation arrangement of mineral is affecting one factor strength of rock anisotropy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Prioul and Gulati with the disclosing of Shi for the purpose of using mechanical anisotropy factor in order to improves hydraulic fracturing design.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prioul, in view of Gulati and SHI (CN103257081A), [hereinafter Shi], as applied above and further in view of Jelinek , V ., “Characterization of the magnetic fabric of rocks”, hereinafter Jelinek.
Regarding Claim 15, Prioul and Shi and Gulati disclose the method according to claim 13, but do not disclose wherein the anisotropy factor is a magnetic anisotropy factor.
Jelinek disclose the anisotropy factor is a magnetic anisotropy factor (Abstract, where system of magnetic susceptibility anisotropy factors which is sufficient in the majority of practical applications for characterizing the magnetic fabric of rocks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify combination of Prioul and Shi and Gulati with the disclosing of Jelinek for the purpose of using a magnetic anisotropy factor in order to provide a fast, cost-effective, and sensitive method for revealing and quantifying the rock's internal fabric.
Conclusion
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 KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights