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. The amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1 and 7 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. While the method involves calculations, the core of the invention provides a highly specific, practical implementation for field operations. The amended claims explicitly integrate the method into the "implementation plan formulation phase to lower an oil-to-water viscosity ratio during field oil recovery operations". The parameters utilized (e.g., permeability, seepage velocity, pore volume) are empirical data derived directly from physical oilfield implementation conditions”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the claims, as currently constructed, are clearly directed to a mathematical concept, as evidenced by the specification and that the specification makes clear each of the formulations used to perform the abstract idea set forth in the claims; and the claims do not recite anything that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor integrate the recited abstract into a practical application, as asserted by the applicant. The Examiner further notes that 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 to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965; and the step of (vi) could amount to insignificant post-solution activities and therefore are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claims 1 and 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: The step of: “(i) according to an average reservoir permeability, calculating an average particle size of dispersed phase droplets of an oil-in-water emulsion which matches a target reservoir, based on a matching relationship model between the average particle size of the dispersed phase droplets of the oil-in-water emulsion and the average reservoir permeability under stable seepage flow of the oil-in-water emulsion, wherein the average particle size of the 15 dispersed phase droplets of the oil-in-water emulsion is calculated by formula (I) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
58
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; wherein k represents the average reservoir permeability, µm²; d represents the average particle size of dispersed phase droplets of the emulsion which matches the target reservoir, µm; and exp() represents an exponential function”; (ii) “according to the average particle size of the dispersed phase droplets flow of the oil-in-water emulsion 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 an emulsifier, wherein the injection concentration of the emulsifier is calculated by formula (II) as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
272
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”;
“(iii)
PNG
media_image3.png
358
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(iv)
PNG
media_image4.png
426
788
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(iv)
PNG
media_image5.png
494
784
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
372
822
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(iv)
PNG
media_image7.png
612
832
media_image7.png
Greyscale
an 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. 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.
(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.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “at least one processor”; and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “programming instructions”, 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 the step of “(vi) integrating the bidirectional self-regulating chemical flooding method into an implementation plan formulation phase to lower an oil-to-water viscosity ratio during field oil recovery operations” could fall under insignificant post-solution activities 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: “at least one processor”; and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “programming instructions”, 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 the step of: (vi) integrating the bidirectional self-regulating chemical flooding method into an implementation plan formulation phase to lower an oil-to-water viscosity ratio during field oil recovery operations” could fall under insignificant post-solution activities 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached 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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 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 August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights