DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Responsive to the communication dated 12/15/2022 Claims 1-20 are presented for examination Information Disclosure Statement The IDS dated 09/06/2023 has been reviewed. See attached. Drawings The drawings dated 12/15/2022 have been reviewed. They are accepted. Abstract The abstract dated 12/15/2022 has been reviewed. It has 148 words, and contains no legal phraseology. It is accepted. Claim Objections Claim s 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “one or mor flow meters…” It is clear that this is a typo and should instead be amended to recite “one or mor e flow meters…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 19 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. Claim 19 recites the limitation " The system of claim 2, wherein first mass flow rate …" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Firstly, claim 2 is not a system, and further no “first” mass flow rate was recited. While the numbering seems to suggest that the claim number was a mistake and claim 19 was intended to depend on claim 15, this claim also does not recite a “first” mass flow rate. This renders the claim indefinite 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process) Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes, the claim recites a mathematic concept specifically: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)( I ): “ The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010) ” Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.” A method comprising: identifying a set of metrics of an initial composition of a drilling mud provided to a wellbore, the set of metrics including a first metric associated with a fraction of clay and a second metric associated with a fraction of solid included in the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore; “Identifying” what fraction of a composition is a particular material, given the measurements of each material, is merely a mathematic calculation of what portion of the whole each material makes up. Note that actually measuring these metrics is an example of mere data gathering. calculating a density of the initial composition of the drilling mud as a function of the first metric associated with the fraction of the clay and the second metric associated with the fraction of the solid included in the initial composition of the drilling mud, wherein the initial composition of the drilling mud is changed to a changed composition of the drilling mud after the initial composition of the drilling mud is provided to the wellbore, and wherein the changed composition of the drilling mud includes a fraction of gasses and an estimated rock mass; … calculating a density of the changed composition that includes the fraction of gasses and the estimated rock mass; … identifying a density difference by subtracting the density of the changed composition from the density of the initial composition; Calculating numeric values mathematically, such as the density of a substance or a difference in calculated densities, is merely a mathematic concept . See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (B) “ A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (C) “ A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation ” identifying the fraction of gasses included in the changed composition based on the density difference and the estimated rock mass; and predicting a composition of the fraction of gasses included in the changed composition based on the density difference. It is clear that this process of “identifying” the fraction of gasses and predicting the composition of those gasses merely consists of mathematically calculating the portion of the overall changed composition that is gas, as well as which gases make up that total gas content and in what proportion. These limitations are further clearly merely textual placeholders for mathematic formulae and calculations. Particularly, Formula 4 described in [Par 33- 35] of the specification corresponds to the “identifying” limitation, while Formula 6 described in [Par 37-38] of the specification corresponds to the “predicting” limitation. Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution? Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Data gathering: identifying a set of metrics of an initial composition of a drilling mud provided to a wellbore, the set of metrics including a first metric associated with a fraction of clay and a second metric associated with a fraction of solid included in the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore; Measuring metrics, such as the amounts of particular substances in a composition, when recited at such a high level of generality, without describing how these measurements are made, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Data gathering: identifying a set of metrics of an initial composition of a drilling mud provided to a wellbore, the set of metrics including a first metric associated with a fraction of clay and a second metric associated with a fraction of solid included in the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore; Measuring metrics , such as the amount s of particular substances in a composition , when recited at such a high level of generality, without describing how these measurements are made, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more , as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such. The claim is ineligible . Claim 2 recites “ further comprising: identifying a mass flow rate of the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore; and identifying a mass flow rate of the changed composition as the changed composition exits the wellbore. ” Measuring these mass flow rates, when recited at such a high level of generality, without describing how these measurements are made, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Claim 3 recites “ wherein the density of the initial composition of the drilling mud (Pmudin) is calculated by applying an equation of: {equation}” Calculating information numerically using a mathematic formula amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “ A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” Claim 4 recites “ wherein the density of the changed composition of the drilling mud is calculated by applying an equation of: {equation}” Calculating information numerically using a mathematic formula amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “ A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” Claim 5 recites “ wherein: the first metric corresponds to a volumetric percentage of the clay in the initial composition of the drilling mud, and the second metric corresponds to a volumetric percentage of the solid in the initial composition of the drilling mud. ” This merely clarifies the numeric form of the determined metrics, and is therefore merely an extension of the mathematic concept and mere data gathering. Claim 6 recites “ further comprising: identifying a specific gravity of rock included in the changed composition, the specific gravity of the rock included in the changed composition corresponding to the mass of the rock in a volume of the changed composition. ” Identifying the specific gravity of a rock is a mental process equivalent to observing the rock, judging what type of rock it is, and recalling the known specific gravity of that rock. This kind of basic fact association is frequently used by geologists and petroleum engineers. Should it be found that this is not a mental process, it is also a mathematic process. Specific gravity of a material can be calculated by dividing the density of a material by the density of a reference material. For most applications, this reference material is water. Claim 7 recites “ wherein the specific gravity of the rock is identified by: acquiring an image of the rock included in the changed composition; and performing an evaluation of the image that identifies the specific gravity of the rock by estimating the mass of the rock included in the volume of the changed composition. ” Estimating the mass of a rock from an image is a mental process equivalent to observing the rock in the image and judging what it is likely to weigh based on experience with rocks of similar size and composition. For example, if a person had previously seen a 1kg piece of sandstone, they could reasonably estimate that a similarly sized piece of sandstone would weigh roughly 1kg. Based on this mass and the known volume of the composition, the person could then calculate the specific gravity of that sandstone. “Acquiring” an image, when recited at such a high level of generality, amounts to no more than merely gathering data representative of that image. Claim 8 recites “ f urther comprising: calculating a density of drill cuttings (PCut), by applying an equation of: {equation}” Calculating information numerically using a mathematic formula amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “ A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” Claim 9 recites “ f urther comprising: identifying the drilled volume (V) per-unit-time (A Time) by applying an equation of: {equation}” Calculating information numerically using a mathematic formula amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “ A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” Claim 10 recites “ further comprising: calculating a change in fluid density (A Pfluid) by applying an equation of: {equation}” Calculating information numerically using a mathematic formula amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “ A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” Claim 11 recites “ further comprising: estimating a fraction of gas compositions included in the changed composition based on a relationship of: {equation}” Calculating information numerically using a mathematic formula amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “ A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” Claim 12 recites “ wherein the mass flow rate of the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore is identified based on the initial composition of the drilling mud flowing through a mass flow meter. ” Measuring the flow rate of a material using a mass flow meter in a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Claim 13 recites “ wherein the mass flow rate of the changed composition is identified based at least in part on a portion of the changed composition flowing through the mass flow meter or a second mass flow meter. ” Measuring the flow rate of a material using a mass flow meter in a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Claim s 14-18 The elements of claims 14-18 are substantially the same as those of claims 1-2 and 5 -7 Therefore, the elements of claim 14-1 8 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1-2 and 5 -7 . Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of Claim 14 “ A system comprising: a memory; and one or more processors that execute instructions out of the memory to: ” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept. Claim 19 recites “ wherein first mass flow rate of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore is identified based on the initial composition of the drilling mud flowing through a mass flow meter. ” Measuring the flow rate of a material using a mass flow meter in a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Claim 20 The elements of claim 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claim 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of Claim 20 “ A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon instructions executable by one or more processors to implement a method comprising: … ” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept. 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. (1) Claims 1-2, 5, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick ( US 4535851 A ) in view of Rasmus ( US 4833914 A ) in further view of Gunn ( AU 2013274009 B2) as well as Rowe ( US 20210047911 A1 ) Claim 1. Kirkpatrick teaches A method comprising: identifying a set of metrics of an initial composition of a drilling mud provided to a wellbore, ([Abstract] “ A system, or apparatus combination, and apparatus components, for the measurement of fluid flow. Such system, or apparatus can be used, e.g., for measuring the amount or flow of drilling fluid, or mud, introduced into a well bore, the amount or flow of mud returned from the well bore, and differences in flow rate and density between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returned from the well bore. The system measures or calculates, inter alia, flow rates, viscosity, temperature, density and gas content ”) the set of metrics including a first metric associated with a fraction of clay and a second metric associated with a fraction of solid included in the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore; ( [Col 4 line 16-21] “ an input mud measurement primary device, or a plurality of input mud measurement primary devices, suitably arranged in parallel, through which an input mud is passed and then fed via a mud pump, or pumps, to a well bore which is provided with means for measuring or calculating …” [Col 1 line 57-59] “ Gas, water and oil also become components of the drilling fluid, which is or becomes a multiple phase slurry constituted of liquids, solids and gases. ” [Col line 66 – Col 4 line 3] “ … measures water base and hydrocarbon base fluids with equal accuracy as well as mixtures of water, hydrocarbons, liquids, gases and solids ” ) calculating a density of the initial composition of the drilling mud ([Col 4 line 16-24] “ an input mud measurement primary device, or a plurality of input mud measurement primary devices, suitably arranged in parallel, through which an input mud is passed and then fed via a mud pump, or pumps, to a well bore which is provided with means for measuring or calculating, inter alia, temperature, density, viscosity, and rate of flow of the mud via differential pressure sensor means, or sensors, located on opposite sides of a variable orifice …”) as a function of the first metric associated with the fraction of the clay and the second metric associated with the fraction of the solid included in the initial composition of the drilling mud, ([Col 1 line 57-59] “ Gas, water and oil also become components of the drilling fluid, which is or becomes a multiple phase slurry constituted of liquids, solids and gases. ” [Col line 66 – Col 4 line 3] “… measures water base and hydrocarbon base fluids with equal accuracy as well as mixtures of water, hydrocarbons, liquids, gases and solids ”) wherein the initial composition of the drilling mud is changed to a changed composition of the drilling mud after the initial composition of the drilling mud is provided to the wellbore, and wherein the changed composition of the drilling mud includes a fraction of gasses and ([Abstract] “ A system, or apparatus combination, and apparatus components, for the measurement of fluid flow. Such system, or apparatus can be used, e.g., for measuring the amount or flow of drilling fluid, or mud, introduced into a well bore, the amount or flow of mud returned from the well bore, and differences in flow rate and density between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returned from the well bore. The system measures or calculates, inter alia, flow rates, viscosity, temperature, density and gas content” [Col 4 line 56-59] “ a mud return flow computer calculates the fluid density (two conditions) and the flow of return mud from down hole, calculates the percent of gas and vapor contained in the mud ” ) an estimated rock mass; calculating a density of the changed composition that includes the fraction of gasses and the estimated rock mass ; ([Col 3 line 45-53] “ measuring or calculating the viscosity, density, temperature, and the rate of flow of a fluid, notably the drilling mud passing downwardly through the drill pipe string, the viscosity, density, temperature and rate of flow of the return drilling mud ascending to the earth's surface from within the well bore ” [Col 4 line 56-59] “ a mud return flow computer calculates the fluid density (two conditions) and the flow of return mud from down hole, calculates the percent of gas and vapor contained in the mud ” ) identifying a density difference by subtracting the density of the changed composition from the density of the initial composition; ([Abstract] “ A system, or apparatus combination, and apparatus components, for the measurement of fluid flow. Such system, or apparatus can be used, e.g., for measuring the amount or flow of drilling fluid, or mud, introduced into a well bore, the amount or flow of mud returned from the well bore, and differences in flow rate and density between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returned from the well bore. The system measures or calculates, inter alia, flow rates, viscosity, temperature, density and gas content” [Col 3 line 45-55] “ measuring or calculating the viscosity, density, temperature, and the rate of flow of a fluid, notably the drilling mud passing downwardly through the drill pipe string, the viscosity, density, temperature and rate of flow of the return drilling mud ascending to the earth's surface from within the well bore , any differences in the density and flow rate between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returning from the well bore, and a running total of these differences. ”) identifying the fraction of gasses included in the changed composition based on the density difference and the estimated rock mass; and predicting a composition of the fraction of gasses included in the changed composition based on the density difference. ( [Col 3 line 46-55] “ and process for measuring or calculating … , any differences in the density and flow rate between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returning from the well bore, and a running total of these differences. ” [Col 4 line 56-59] “ a mud return flow computer calculates the fluid density (two conditions) and the flow of return mud from down hole, calculates the percent of gas and vapor contained in the mud ” ) Kirkpatrick does not explicitly teach a set of metrics, the set of metrics including a first metric associated with a fraction of clay; calculating density as a function of the first metric associated with the fraction of the clay and the second metric associated solid content ; an estimated rock mass; determining an estimated rock mass; calculating data based on the estimated rock mass; calculating a composition of the gases. Rasmus teaches a set of metrics, the set of metrics including a first metric associated with a fraction of clay; calculating density as a function of the first metric associated with the fraction of the clay and the second metric associated with solid content. ([Col 5 line 56-57] “ The system can also utilize the additional, measurements of RHOB (bulk density) ” [Col 9 line 4-18] “ V.sub.cl =the Volume of the formation which is a clay mineral; and V.sub.m1 =the Volume of the formation which is a non-clay mineral (eg. quartz). Also, the following gamma density response equation may be used where a gamma density log is available: RHOB= RHO. sub.mf Phi.sub.mf + RHO. sub.cl V.sub.cl + RHO. sub.m1 V.sub.m1 + RHO. sub.hy Phi.sub.hy (9) where RHO. sub.mf, RHO. sub.cl, RHO. sub.m1 and RHO. sub.hy are parameters determined to be equal to the measurements expected to be made by the gamma density tool completely surrounded by drilling fluid filtrate, clay, a non-clay mineral, and hydrocarbon respectively. ”) an estimated rock mass; determining an estimated rock mass; calculating data based on the estimated rock mass; predicting a composition of the gases. Rasmus is analogous art because it is within the field of well drilling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Kirkpatrick before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better control the drilling process and prevent dangerous conditions. As explained by Rasmus , the lack of accurate pore pressure measurements frequently cause drillers to overcompensate drilling mud weights by wide margins to avoid potential blowouts, even though this overly large margin can lower efficiency. ([Col 1 line 7- Col 2 line 38] “ It is well known that as a borehole is drilled, it is necessary to assure that the fluids found in the virgin rock or formation are not permitted to flow uncontrollably into the borehole. In extreme situations, where the formation fluid is a gas, either in its gaseous or dissolved state, incursions of the formation gas into the borehole has the effect of diluting the column of drilling mud, thereby significantly reducing bottom hole pressure and increasing the flow of formation fluids from the rock into the borehole. If this process, which tends to feed on itself, is permitted to continue, an event called a "blowout" may occur. Blowouts are undesirable not only due to the loss of the valuable formation fluids, such as hydrocarbon oil or gas, but more importantly, uncontrolled flows of formation fluids at the earth's surface is a source of pollution and, when the fluids include hydrocarbons, are likely to be ignited to produce a burning well. As a result of this scenario, it is conventional to drill the borehole with a drilling mud whose density, (mud weight), is controlled in order to assure that there is little or no chance that the formation fluids can flow into the borehole. This is accomplished by providing a drilling mud that produces a hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the well which exceeds the pore pressure of the fluids in the rock formation. The disastrous consequences of a blowout usually cause the driller to be conservative and to specify a drilling mud weight that is calculated to guarantee that bottom hole mud pressure exceeds by quite a margin the expected formation pore pressure. Unfortunately, there has, till now, not been available a technique for reliably determining the formation pore pressure while the borehole is being drilled. Thus the driller is likely to provide a large pressure overbalance (i.e. the difference between bottom hole mud pressure and the formation pore pressure) since the drill bit may enter an overpressured formation at any time. Drilling with a large pressure overbalance may be detrimental in that it tends to increase the "hardness" or Formation Strength of the rock thereby reducing drilling rate and, in extreme cases, it may exceed the fracture strength of the rock to thereby cause formation damage. By "Formation Strength" is meant the resistance to borehole excavation posed by the geological formation to the drill bit while the borehole is being drilled. … With this explanation, it can be understood that fluid pressures in formations which exceed those resulting from only considerations of hydrostatics are related to an "excess porosity" as compared to those formations at the same depth which were formed in a manner which permitted the formation fluids to escape and the formation matrix to compress with a normal pore space reduction. For the purposes of this application, the excess porosity will be called overpressure porosity, phi.sub.op, and the fluid pressure in the formation will be called the pore pressure, PP. Also, for the purposes of this application, the porosity to be expected from non-exceptional formations will be called the "effective porosity", phi.sub.ef, and the portion of the pore space filled by water will be called the "water porosity", phi.sub.w. Many attempts in the past have been made to determine the pore pressure by various techniques, most of which rely on the comparison of a measured parameter to an expected trend in that parameter attributable to increasing burial depth and decreasing porosity. Take, for example, trends in sonic transit time, (delta t), which is normally expected to exhibit a reducing trend with depth. In addition, it is known that formations having larger values of porosity tend to drill more easily, or to have smaller Formation Strength, than formations with smaller porosities. However, no prior attempts have been made to separate formation porosity into a "normal", or effective porosity, and an "exceptional", or excess porosity from which may be determined a value of formation pore pressure in order to detect overpressure conditions. ” ) To this end, Rasmus presents a method for the accurate measurement of pore pressure, among other metrics, to determine an optimal drilling mud weight that is as efficient as possible without risking blowout. ([Abstract] “ Formation strength and other measurement while drilling parameters are combined in a formation volumetric analysis which produces not only the traditional volumetric components of clay volume, mineral volume, total porosity, and water filled porosity, but also, in shaley formations, an excess or overpressure porosity. The overpressure porosity is then utilized to generate an indication of pore pressure which in turn is used in the drilling process as an aid in determining the lowest optimal drilling mud weight for most efficient drilling without incurring excessive risks of a blowout arising from an overpressured formation. ”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Rasmus with Kirkpatrick would result in a significantly more efficient drilling system overall. Gunn makes obvious an estimated rock mass; determining an estimated rock mass; calculating data based on the estimated rock mass; predicting a composition of the gases. ([Page 3 Par 1] “ Another embodiment of the invention is a method of detecting, analyzing and quantifying the composition of hydrocarbon gases liberated from the drilling mud of an oil and/or gas well using multi-channel infrared spectral analysis of the sample gases, the method comprising: (a) liberating gases from drilling mud to form a gas sample; (b) drawing the sample into a gas measurement cell using an electromechanical pump; (c) irradiating the gas sample with infrared radiation from a wide band source; (d) using a Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer to measure the primary hydrocarbon absorption spectrum of 3.15 to 3.55 pm of the sample gas based on comparison to a reference spectrum, wherein primary hydrocarbon absorption spectrum shoulder regions of 2.9 to 3.15 tm and 3.5 to 4.2 tm and a secondary hydrocarbon absorption spectrum of 2.15 to 2.55 ptm are used once the primary hydrocarbon absorption spectrum starts to saturate, in order to extend the hydrocarbon gas detection range up to 100% concentration; (e) using a system processor to perform multivariate analysis of the absorption spectrum allowing the sample gas hydrocarbon composition to be analyzed and quantified; and (f) using multiple calibration models utilizing different spectral regions to increase dynamic range of hydrocarbon gas detection and quantification. ”) Gunn is analogous art because it is within the field of drilling fluid analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gunn with Kirkpatrick and Rasmus before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to more efficiently analyze the content of the drilling fluid, particularly the gas content. Gunn notes how contemporary methods for drilling fluid gas analysis either take a considerable amount of time or are severely inaccurate due to the limited detectable substances in these high-speed system s compared to the slower systems ([Page 2 Par 1-2] “ Current gas chromatograph equipment take a spot sample of the liberated gases, but require up to 5 minutes and analyze the sample. While the sample is being analyzed over this time period other gas samples go by unanalyzed resulting in missing valuable information 10 about the formation. Previous gas chromatography have been an instrumental method used for the separation and identification of chemical compounds and gases, but are a slow process as every component of gas moves through the column at a different rate to be analyzed. The time cycle required to separate and then analyze the hydrocarbons can take up to 5 minutes for full breakdown (methane to octane). Newer high speed chromatographs can provide data on the 15 hydrocarbon spectra (methane to Butanes) in around 1 minute, but do not provide any data on the heavier hydrocarbons (pentane to octane). These heavier hydrocarbons (pentane to octane) are required to calculate proper gas ratio formulas to predict the hydrocarbon state. Also, many current gas chromatographs require a carrier gas such as helium to bum the detector at a consistent heat level and may also require an operator to ensure the gas chromatograph 20 operates properly adding more cost to drilling operations. When using a combustion type detector in a gas chromatograph any amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide will give a false reading in a gas chromatograph affecting the hydrocarbon response … Accordingly, there is a need for a more reliable apparatus for identifying constituents of sample gas from drilling mud in a much quicker time frame to keep up with the increased drilling rate of penetration. In particular, there is need to distinguish one or more hydrocarbon types containing one to eight carbon atoms, such as methane, ethane, propane, butane isomers (n-butane, iso-butane), pentane isomers (n-pentane, iso-pentane, neo-pentane), hexane isomers 20 (hexane, methylpentanes, dimethylbutanes), heptanes, and octanes, and carbon dioxide gas carried by the drilling fluid returning from a well, and to provide an indication of how much of those gases are present, if any. There is a need to provide said gas data at a quicker interval then current industry gas chromatographs to be able to react most effectively to changing hydrocarbon gases and ratios and hence maximize targeted zones and well production. ”) To this end, Gunn presents a method for more efficient drilling fluid gas analysis that is both faster and has a full range of detectable substances ([Page 2 Par 3-Page 3 Par 1] “ We have discovered that using a high resolution spectrometer to generate a full spectral plot of the absorption spectrum (hundreds of channels), versus four comparatively broad channels using narrow band filters, and the use of multivariate techniques to isolate the individual gases in a way that is not physically possible with a NDIR curve fitting calibration, allows isolation of each gas component from C1 to C5 (iso and normal for C4 and C5 to make 7 components) in a comparable fashion to a gas chromatograph (GC). One embodiment of this invention is a device that analyzes the composition of hydrocarbon gases comprising methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, iso-butane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, neo-pentane, hexane isomers, heptane isomers and octane isomers released from drilling muds, wherein the device comprises a wide band infrared emitter, a gas cell in which the sample gas is irradiated, a Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer, measuring a primary hydrocarbon absorption spectrum of 3.15 to 3.55 tm and primary absorption spectrum shoulder regions of 2.9 to 3.15 pm and 3.5 to 4.2 tm, a focusing optic element that directs gas cell radiation into the spectrometer, and a system processor that performs analysis of the absorption spectrum to determine the gas composition. ”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Gunn with Kirkpatrick and Rasmus would result in a system capable of faster, more accurate drilling fluid analysis. The combination of Kirkpatrick, Rasmus, and Gunn does not explicitly teach an estimated rock mass; determining an estimated rock mass; calculating data based on the estimated rock mass; Rowe makes obvious an estimated rock mass; determining an estimated rock mass; calculating data based on the estimated rock mass; ([Abstract] “ A method for identifying cuttings volume may comprise taking one or more inlet measurements of a drilling fluid at an inlet meter before the drilling fluid is circulated into a wellbore, taking one or more outlet measurements of a drilling fluid at an outlet meter after the drilling fluid is returned from the wellbore with cuttings, subtracting the one or more inlet measurements from the one or more outlet measurements and adding hole fill to determine mass of the cuttings, identifying a density of the cuttings, and converting the mass of the cuttings to the volume of the cuttings using the density of the cuttings. ” [Examiner’s note: cuttings are the solid rocks returned from the drill in the return fluid]) Rowe is analogous art because it is within the field of drilling fluid analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Kirkpatrick, Rasmus, and Gunn before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to more easily measure aspects of the drilling fluid, particularly characteristics of the cuttings. As noted by Rowe, direct measurement of cuttings can be exceedingly difficult, which can lead to overall inaccurate characterizations of the drilling fluid as a whole ([Par 7] “T he present disclosure relates generally to a system and method for determining cuttings volume. Currently, there may be many issues associated with directly measuring the volume of cuttings. For example, smaller particle cuttings may be hard to account for and measure and “wet” cuttings may throw off volume measurements. Mass measurements may be a reliable measurement that may be utilized by an information handling system to identify the volume of cuttings. ”) To this end, Rowe presents a method for the accurate measurement of cuttings ([Par 8] “ Recent developments in metering technology can improve the ability of drilling operators to collect drilling fluid data during drilling operations. For example, the introduction of Coriolis meters suitable for drilling fluids and sized for the flow requirements of drilling operations have enabled drilling operators to measure flow rate and density of drilling fluids in real time. Given this increased availability of drilling fluid data, new methods and systems may be utilized to determine cuttings volume. ” [Abstract] “ A method for identifying cuttings volume may comprise taking one or more inlet measurements of a drilling fluid at an inlet meter before the drilling fluid is circulated into a wellbore, taking one or more outlet measurements of a drilling fluid at an outlet meter after the drilling fluid is returned from the wellbore with cuttings, subtracting the one or more inlet measurements from the one or more outlet measurements and adding hole fill to determine mass of the cuttings, identifying a density of the cuttings, and converting the mass of the cuttings to the volume of the cuttings using the density of the cuttings. A system may comprise an inlet meter, an outlet meter, a pump for circulating a drilling fluid and one or more cuttings through the inlet meter and the outlet meter, and an information handling system. ”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Rowe with Kirkpatrick, Rasmus, and Gunn would result in an overall more accurate analysis and characterization of the drilling fluid. Claim 2. Kirkpatrick teaches identifying a mass flow rate of the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore; and identifying a mass flow rate of the changed composition as the changed composition exits the wellbore. ([Abstract] “ A system, or apparatus combination, and apparatus components, for the measurement of fluid flow. Such system, or apparatus can be used, e.g., for measuring the amount or flow of drilling fluid, or mud, introduced into a well bore, the amount or flow of mud returned from the well bore, and differences in flow rate and density between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returned from the well bore. The system measures or calculates, inter alia, flow rates, viscosity, temperature, density and gas content” [Col 3 line 45-55] “ measuring or calculating the viscosity, density, temperature, and the rate of flow of a fluid, notably the drilling mud passing downwardly through the drill pipe string, the viscosity, density, temperature and rate of flow of the return drilling mud ascending to the earth's surface from within the well bore , any differences in the density and flow rate between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returning from the well bore, and a running total of these differences. ”) Claim 5. Kirkpatrick teaches wherein: the first metric corresponds to a volumetric percentage of the clay in the initial composition of the drilling mud, and the second metric corresponds to a volumetric percentage of the solid in the initial composition of the drilling mud. ([Col 1 line 57-59] “ Gas, water and oil also become components of the drilling fluid, which is or becomes a multiple phase slurry constituted of liquids, solids and gases. ” [Col line 66 – Col 4 line 3] “… measures water base and hydrocarbon base fluids with equal accuracy as well as mixtures of water, hydrocarbons, liquids, gases and solids ”) Rasmus makes obvious wherein: the first metric corresponds to a volumetric percentage of clay content , and the second metric corresponds to a volumetric percentage of solid ([Col 5 line 56-57] “ The system can also utilize the additional, measurements of RHOB (bulk density) ” [Col 9 line 4-18] “ V.sub.cl =the Volume of the formation which is a clay mineral; and V.sub.m1 =the Volume of the formation which is a non-clay mineral (eg. quartz). Also, the following gamma density response equation may be used where a gamma density log is available: RHOB= RHO. sub.mf Phi.sub.mf + RHO. sub.cl V.sub.cl + RHO. sub.m1 V.sub.m1 + RHO. sub.hy Phi.sub.hy (9) where RHO. sub.mf, RHO. sub.cl, RHO. sub.m1 and RHO. sub.hy are parameters determined to be equal to the measurements expected to be made by the gamma density tool completely surrounded by drilling fluid filtrate, clay, a non-clay mineral, and hydrocarbon respectively. ”) Claim 12. Kirkpatrick teaches wherein the mass flow rate of the initial composition of the drilling mud provided to the wellbore is identified based on the initial composition of the drilling mud flowing through a mass flow meter. ([Abstract] “ A system, or apparatus combination, and apparatus components, for the measurement of fluid flow. Such system, or apparatus can be used, e.g., for measuring the amount or flow of drilling fluid, or mud, introduced into a well bore, the amount or flow of mud returned from the well bore, and differences in flow rate and density between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returned from the well bore. The system measures or calculates, inter alia, flow rates, viscosity, temperature, density and gas content” [Col 3 line 45-55] “ measuring or calculating the viscosity, density, temperature, and the rate of flow of a fluid, notably the drilling mud passing downwardly through the drill pipe string, the viscosity, density, temperature and rate of flow of the return drilling mud ascending to the earth's surface from within the well bore , any differences in the density and flow rate between the mud introduced into the well bore and the mud returning from the well bore, and a running total of these differences. ” [Col 12 line 63-68] “ The primary mud return flow meter 300 is also provided with J-boxes 313, 314, 322 within which are stored pneumatic and electrical leads circuit components and the like; and below the J-boxes 313, 314, 322 there are located