DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. Claims 1-7 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 3. 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. 3.1 Claims 1- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 2A- Prong One The claim(s) recite(s) a bidirectional self-regulating chemical flooding method for enhancing oil recovery , comprising: T he step of : “ (i) calculating the average particle size of dispersed phase droplets under stable seepage flow of an oil-in-water emulsion ” ; “ according to the average reservoir permeability, calculating the average particle size of dispersed phase droplets of an emulsion which matches a target reservoir, based on a matching relationship model between the average particle size of dispersed phase droplets of the oil-in-water emulsion and the average reservoir permeability under stable seepage flow of the oil-in-water emulsion ” ; “ (ii) calculating injection concentration of an emulsifier ” ; “ according to the average particle size of the dispersed phase droplets under stable seepage flow of the oil-in-water emulsion calculated in step (i) and reservoir seepage velocity determined by field implementation conditions, calculating injection concentration of the emulsifier which matches the target reservoir, based on a regression relationship model among the average particle size of the dispersed phase droplets, the reservoir seepage velocity and the injection concentration of the emulsifier ” ; “ (iii) calculating injection concentration of a polymer ” ; and “ calculating equivalent ton oil accumulation, wherein injection concentration of the polymer used in the core flooding experiments with the maximum equivalent ton oil accumulation is the optimal injection concentration of the polymer which matches the injection concentration of the emulsifier ” ; “ (iv) calculating total injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in well group units ” ; “ according to pore volume of well group units and a given injection pore volume multiple, calculating total injection amount of the emulsifier and total injection amount of the polymer required by the well group units, based on the injection concentration of the emulsifier calculated in step (ii) and the injection concentration of the polymer calculated in step (3) ” ; “ performing simulated calculation on different combination schemes of adjustable variables by using a numerical simulator for a chemical flooding reservoir, and counting cumulative recovery degree of each scheme, with the maximum cumulative recovery degree as a target and the total injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in the well group units determined in step (iv) as a constraint condition, and injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in each single well as an adjustable variable, wherein an adjustable variable corresponding to the maximum value of schemes is the optimal value of injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in each single well ”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship . Likewise, the further steps of “under a condition of keeping the injection concentration of the emulsifier constant, adjusting injection concentration of the polymer, carrying out several groups of core flooding experiments, counting injection volume and cumulative oil production of emulsifier solution and polymer solution in each group of the core flooding experiments”, and (v) optimizing injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in each single well” , under the broadest reasonable interpretation could reasonably fall a mathematical concept and otherwise an iterative mathematical process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed. Step 2A Prong Two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a module ”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities ( see specification at para [00 21 ] ) which can be of any type, previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Step 2B The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a module ”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities ( see specification at para [0021] ) which can be of any type, previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed. 3.2 Dependent claims 2- 6 , merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations (claim 2) , “ wherein a calculating formula (I) for the average particle size of dispersed phase droplets of the emulsion which matches the target reservoir in step (1) is shown as follows: ” ( mathematical concept ) . (claim 3) ; “ wherein a calculating formula (II) for the injection concentration of the emulsifier which matches the target reservoir in step (ii) is shown as follows: ” ( mathematical concept ); (claim 4) ; “ wherein a calculating formula (III) for the equivalent ton oil accumulation in step (iii) is shown as follows: ” (mathematical concept); (claim 5) ; “ wherein a calculating formula (IV) for the total injection amount of the emulsifier required by the well group units in step (iv) is shown as follows: ” (mathematical concept); (claim 6) “ wherein a calculating formula (V) for the total injection amount of the polymer required by the well group units in step (iv) is shown as follows: ” ( mathematical concep ); (claim 7) ; inherit the same defect as claim 1, and thus is rejected similarly , all of which further amount to further mathematical concept similar to that already recited by the independent claim 1 and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Interpretation 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 3.1 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 3.2 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module” in claim 7. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. 5.1 Claim limitation “module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. T he disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, as the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, n or is there any association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 5.2 Claims 1-7 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite (claim 1 e.g.) (i) “ calculating the average particle size…” in line 3 ; (ii) “calculating injection concentration of an emulsifier” in line 10 ; (iii) “ calculating injection concentration of an emulsifier in line 17; (iv) “calculating total injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in well group units” in line 25 ; (v) “optimizing injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in single well” in line 30 ; however, the claim does not set any means by which said calculations could be performed, such what is used as inputs in the calculations , as there appears to be further calculation of the same based some sort of data which lead to be understood that multiple or duplicate calculations of the same are performed . Further in (i i) “ calculating injection concentration of the emulsifier which matches the target reservoir, based on a regression relationship model among the average particle size of the dispersed phase droplets, the reservoir seepage velocity and the injection concentration of the emulsifier ”, it is unclear how the injection concentration is used in the same process calculating the injection concentration of the emulsifier . Further in (v) the claim recites “optimizing injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in single well” with no indication as to what is used in said optimization and/or how said optimization could achieved, as intended. Further clarification is respectfully requested in response to this office correspondence . Claim 7 inherits the same defect based similar recitation and further does not provides any means by which these steps could be accomplished except for stating that they are performed. . 5.3 Claim 1 further recites the limitation s: " the average particle size " in line 3, and throughout of the claim . For example, “according to the average reservoir permeability ” , calculating “ the average particle size ” … , based on a matching relationship model between “ the average particle size ” …. and “ the average reservoir permeability under stable seepage flow ” ; There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim . (ii) … ; according to “ the average particle size ” . ..“ the oil-in-water emulsion calculated in step (i) ” and “ the emulsifier which matches the target reservoir ” , based on a regression relationship model among “ the average particle size ” of the … , “ the reservoir seepage velocity ” ; There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim . (iii) … , wherein injection concentration of “ the polymer used in the core flooding experiments ” with “ the optimal injection concentration ” of the polymer which matches the injection concentration of the emulsifier; There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . (iv) “… amount of the polymer required by the well group units ” , and (v) “... the maximum cumulative recovery degree as a target ” and (iv) “… the maximum value of schemes ” is “ the optimal value of injection amount ” of the emulsifier and the polymer in each single well. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . The remaining dependent claims 2-6 recite limitations which contains the above issues and thus inherit the same defect. The Examiner respectfully requests that applicant go over each of the claims not pointed out in this rejection to ensure that they comply to 35 USC 112, as pointed out above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. 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. 6.0 Claim (s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2019/0323324), in view of Hiraoka et al . (USPG_PUB No. 2023/0002669 ). 6.1 In considering claim 7, Ghosh et al. teaches a bidirectional self-regulating chemical flooding system for enhancing oil recovery (see para [0005] chemical enhanced oil recovery processes, a chemical solution (e.g., an injection fluid including a polymer, a surfactant, a co-surfactant, an alkali, a co-solvent, or any combination thereof) is injected into the subsurface reservoir. [0051] In a chemical enhanced oil recovery process, the polymer increases phase viscosity and enhances sweep efficiency ) , comprising: a module for calculating injection concentration of an emulsifier, configured to calculate injection concentration of an emulsifier (see para [0012], determining a viscosity /concentration of the microemulsion phase of the micro - emulsion system using the viscosity of the aqueous component of the microemulsion phase of the microemulsion system. [0019] FIGS. 7A- 7D illustrate examples of viscosities of the micro - emulsion phase that may be calculated using FIG. 5. ) ; a module for calculating injection concentration of a polymer , configured to calculate injection concentration of a polymer (see para [0010], The polymer partitioning model determines a concentration of the polymer in a brine phase of the microemulsion system and a concentration of the polymer in an aqueous component of a microemulsion phase of the microemulsion system. [0018] FIGS. 6A- 6D illustrate examples of concentration s of the polymer in the brine phase and concentration s of the polymer in the aqueous component of the microemulsion phase that may be calculated using FIG. 5. ) ; a module for calculating total injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in well group units, configured to calculate total injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in well group units ( para [0090]-[0091], having the calculated amount of each concentration, where C.sub.1.sup.4 represents a concentration of the polymer in a total aqueous component of the microemulsion system, C.sub.1 represents total aqueous volume concentration of the microemulsion system, and C.sub.4 represents total mass concentration , it is clear that an artisan skilled in the art would arrive at the total concentration . ) ; and a module for optimizing injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in each single well, configured to optimize injection amount of the emulsifier and the polymer in each single well (see para [0094] For example, determining performance may include determining different concentrations of the polymer and determining the performance of the chemical enhanced oil recovery process with each concentration of the polymer. As another example, determining performance includes determining an optimal or close to optimal concentration of the polymer that should be used in the injection fluid in the chemical enhanced oil recovery process, which impacts overall project economics. As another example, determining performance may include forecasting incremental oil recovery. As another example, determining performance may include whether or not to convert a wellbore into an injection wellbore or simply shut-in the wellbore. As another example, determining performance may be based on more accurate simulations, and for example, the simulation may be utilized to determine how to control injection wellbore(s) and production wellbore(s), including adjusting the pressure, concentration of the polymer, injection flow rate, cumulative amount of injection fluid, etc . ) . But fail to show a module for calculating the average particle size of dispersed phase droplets of an emulsion, configured to calculate the average particle size of the dispersed phase droplets under stable seepage flow of an oil-in-water emulsion . Hiraoka et al. teaches calculate the average particle size of the dispersed phase droplets under stable seepage flow of an oil-in-water emulsion (see para [0138] Average primary particle diameter as measured by the nitrogen gas adsorption method (BET method): An aqueous silica sol was dried and the resultant silica solid was pulverized, and then the pulverized product was further dried to yield silica powder. The average primary particle diameter was calcul ated on the basis of the specific surface area of the silica powder determined with a specific surface area measuring device Monosorb (available from Quantachrome Instruments). Further see [00 73 ] - [0074] The DLS average particle diameter corresponds to the average of the diameters of secondary particles (diameters of dispers ed particles). It is said that the DLS average particle diameter of completely dispers ed particles is about twice the average primary particle diameter (i.e., specific surface area diameter as measured by the nitrogen gas adsorption method (BET method) or the Sears method, corresponding to the average of primary particle diameters). Thus, the measurement of the DLS average particle diameter can determine whether the colloidal particles (surface-treated silica particles in the present invention) contained in the aqueous sol are in a dispers ed state or in an aggregated state. Specifically, it can be determined that a larger DLS average particle diameter indicates an aggregated state of the colloidal particles contained in the aqueous sol. ) . Ghosh et al. and Hiraoka et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model analyzes by Hiraoka et al. is similar to that of Ghosh et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art to combine the method of Hiraoka et al with that of Ghosh et al. because Hiraoka et al. teaches the improv ement in crude oil recovery efficiency (see para [ 0132 ]) . Conclusion 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 7.1 Southwell et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2019/0078016 ) teaches a crude oil recovery chemical fluid having a silane compound, an aqueous silica sol having an average particle diameter of from about 3 nm to about 200 nm, two or more anionic surfactants, and one or more nonionic surfactants. 7.2 Jerauld et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2014/0345862 ) teaches a method of oil recovery from a subterranean oil-bearing reservoir uses an injection fluid comprising a viscosifying polymer in a low salinity water. 8. Claims 1-7 are rejected and this action is non-final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8636 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3652 . 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. /ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 March 20, 2026