DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/11/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1,19 and 20 have been amended. Regarding Claims 2,9 and 16: cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-18 fall within category of process Each of claim 19 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); and claim20 is directed to a “A non-transitory computer readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.
Regarding Claims 1-20
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claims 1 and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea of identifying a parameter of the formation.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations, specifically calim1:
1. A method comprising:
measuring a changing concentration profile of a volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from a formation over a time interval through a wellbore, wherein the tracer solution is injected into the formation through one or more probes of a plurality of probes that are set into the formation at a location within the wellbore;
generating a varying simulated concentration profile associated with the tracer solution in a simulated formation by modifying simulated formation parameters of the simulated formation;
comparing the varying simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation; and
identifying a parameter of the formation based on a comparison of the varying simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation..
The italicized limitations above represent mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “generating a varying simulated concentration profile [..]; comparing the varying simulated concentration profile [..];identifying a parameter of the formation [..]” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “ measuring a changing concentration profile of a volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from a formation over a time interval through a wellbore, wherein the tracer solution is injected into the formation through one or more probes of a plurality of probes that are set into the formation at a location within the wellbore” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and/ ordata gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, 2nd additional first element is “A system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic control system with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claims contains additional elements that are, i.e. tracer solution, probes, processor, memory”, generic devices and solution component, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-18
Dependent claims 2-18 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For Examples, claim 2-12: these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For Examples, claims 13 and 17: claims limitations are directed to mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
For Examples, claims 14-16 and 18: describes the elements amount to mere use of a generic components of tracer solution from the formation and operation system , which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d)
Examiner Notes
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, There is no prior art rejection over claims limitations, however there is 101 rejections.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, 19 and 20, The applicant did not agree with it, see, pages 7-9. Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to a Mental Process; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because limitations of claim 1,19 and 20 represent a combination of mental step (i.e., fundamental economic practice, a sales activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and/or a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claim1, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic measuring device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 103 rejection , specially claims 1, 19 and 20 has been considered and withdrawn.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Pop et al. (US 2015/0330218) disclose the interpretation of the formation response and/or fluid properties measured at block 520 may be performed using one or more of the simulators 302-308 of the simulation engine 240 and/or using the processing unit 250. For example, the simulation engine 240 and/or the processing unit 240 may process the mudcake parameters, the reservoir parameters, the tool response parameters and/or the data associated with the wellbore hydraulics model to generate simulation outputs. The simulation engine 240 and/or the processing unit 240 may also process the actual measurements (e.g., the formation and/or mudcake parameters) along with the sampling parameters to calculate, determine and/or predict a theoretical response to the sampling process
b) Hasan et al. (US 20230038447) disclose Dosing pump will be used to inject set volume (at least 5 mL/min) of liquid conservative tracers into along with the injection fluid. Dosing is done inline after the injection pumps. Due to the dynamic changes in the subsurface pressure conditions after the start of injection flow rate is expected to change over time to reflect the change in conditions.
c) Marya et al. (US 20230086904 ) disclose he tracers 68 are materials capable of producing a detectable, measurable, or observable change in at least a portion of the surface or volume in optical properties and/or electrical properties of the corrosion detection coating 62 upon exposure to one or more fluids, such as water, CO2, H2S, an acid, or a base. The tracers 68 may include one or more types of metal particles 74 and/or one or more types of inorganic particles 76, each of which may be a micron-sized particle, a nanoparticle, or a larger size particle.
d) Kul. et al. (US 20200032641) disclose A method, a system, tools for use by the system, and an interpretation method for injecting and detecting tracers and conducting flow characterizing of a petroleum well are disclosed. The method describes monitoring of travel time and slip velocity between two/three different phases (oil/water and possibly gas) in the well.
e)Gizz et al. ( US 20240035373) disclose the non-degradable portion may be selected based on size and composition so that it may be carried to the surface of the subterranean formation with a gaseous phase 414. At the surface, the non-degradable portion encapsulating the tracer may be collected, analyzed, and correlated to the treatment stage of the treatment zone in the target formation 416. The non-degradable portion including the tracer may be collected via any device known in the art such as an environmental air sampler or a gas-permeable membrane filter. Any method suitable for analysis of the tracer may be used to analyze the tracer including, but not limited to.
f) Verdin et al. (US 2023/0273180) disclose blue-dye tracer WBM invading a water-saturated formation. A blue-dye tracer component can be used in the mud-filtrate phase to differentiate the mud-filtrate from the formation water. For the compositional model, mud-filtrate and in-situ reservoir fluids are fully miscible. Similarly, a black oil model can be employed for reproducing a multiphase flow case with a WBM invading a hydrocarbon-saturated reservoir. Once the models are verified and benchmarked for their accuracy and reliability, seven reservoir simulation cases are constructed to obtain synthetic data to implement the FCD method: Base case: homogeneous isotropic reservoir, radial boundaries, vertical boundaries, thin laminations, mud-filtrate invasion, reservoir properties, and permeability anisotropy.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights