DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the amendment filed 06/01/2026: Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Specification
Applicant's arguments regarding the objection to the disclosure regarding the acronym/term/symbol/variable “MM”, “t”, and “W” have been partially fixed, however the claims have not been amended on the first appearance of “MM”, “t”, and “W”. Therefore the objection still stands.
Rejection Under 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Applicant argues: “Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception without "significantly more." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this rejection. To clarify, Applicant is analyzing the claims under Step 2A, Prong II.
The question under Step 2A, Prong II is whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106. Critically, Step 2A explicitly excludes consideration of whether these additional elements represent well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Id. The Office Action's reliance on conventionality arguments at this stage is a clear legal error under Step 2A, Prong II.
Furthermore, the limitations in question do not recite mathematical concepts. Rather, the recitations of "acquiring, using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region" and "acquiring, using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume7
in the subterranean region" describe physical, practical steps of data acquisition via a specialized tool. The Office Action fails to provide a meaningful response to Applicant's arguments regarding the presence of a particular machine and the addition of meaningful limitations under MPEP § § 2106.05(b) and (e):
Integration via a Particular Machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)): The MPEP dictates that examiners must consider whether a judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. Here, the claims explicitly recite an "NMR sensor." This is not a generic computer or a broad technological environment; it is a highly specialized instrument engineered specifically to detect nuclear magnetic resonance signals. This factor heavily weighs in favor of integration into a practical application.
Meaningful Limitations Beyond Generic Linking (MPEP § 2106.05(e)): The claims do not merely link an abstract idea to a general field. The claimed measurements must be acquired by an NMR sensor disposed downhole within a subterranean region. This physical, downhole constraints means the data cannot be generated in an abstract or generic manner. Without this specific physical data collection, the entire utility of the claim ceases to exist.
The Examiner's assertion that "claims 1-20 do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" is a conclusory statement entirely unsupported by the record or objective analysis. Office Action, page 9. Merely stating that a limitation is "conventional" or a "mathematical concept" does not satisfy the Office's burden to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability. Because the Office Action relies on circular reasoning rather than the clear directives of MPEP § 2106.05, Applicant respectfully requests that the Section 101 rejection be withdrawn. The judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application in independent claims 1, 9, and 15. Applicant therefore requests that the Examiner withdraw the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, step 2A, Prong Two of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite the additional elements of
1) " acquiring, using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the first NMR signal is acquired using a first acquisition window"
2) "acquiring, using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the second NMR signal is acquired using a second acquisition window different from the first acquisition window"
Limitations 1-2 applies generating and measuring an NMR signal. However, this NMR signal is applied in order to collect data for the abstract analysis steps, and is a necessary precursor for data gathering and all uses of the abstract idea. This limitation is thus extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
At best, limitations 1-2 merely link the abstract idea to a field of use (NMR measurements downhole), and fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are still not eligible under prong 2 of Step 2A and the rejection stands.
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiderman et al (US 11,422,283 B1, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Reiderman) in view of Speier et al (US 2003/0132749 A1, heretofore referred to as Speier) in view of Jachmann et al (US 2016/0018555 A1, heretofore referred to as Jachmann) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
3.1) the acronym/term/symbol/variable “MM” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
3.2) the acronym/term/symbol/variable “t” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
3.3) the acronym/term/symbol/variable “W” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
Appropriate correction is required. The examiner appreciates the assistance of the Applicant(s).
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. as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106. (Note: the claim limitations below considered to fall within an abstract idea are highlighted in bold font; the remaining features are "additional elements.")
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 1-8 and 15-20 is directed to a method, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Claims 9-14 are directed to a machine, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Claim 1 recites:
" A method to perform nuclear magnetic resonance measurements, and nuclear magnetic resonance tools, the method comprising:
acquiring, using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the first NMR signal is acquired using a first acquisition window;
acquiring, using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the second NMR signal is acquired using a second acquisition window different from the first acquisition window;
determining, using the first NMR signal and the second NMR signal, a motion indicator data;
estimating a motion multiplier vector from at least the motion indicator data; and correcting the first NMR signal or the second NMR signal with the motion multiplier vector."
Claim 9 recites:
" A NMR tool for use in a wellbore in a subterranean region, the NMR tool comprising:
a magnet assembly configured to produce a magnetic field in a volume in the subterranean region;
an antenna assembly configured to produce an excitation in the volume, and to receive NMR signals from the volume; and
an acquisition system coupled to the antenna assembly and configured to:
acquire a first NMR signal using a first acquisition window having a first duration; and
acquire a second NMR signal using a second acquisition window having a second duration, wherein the second duration is different than the first duration; and
a processor coupled to the acquisition system and configured to:
acquire using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the first NMR signal is acquired using a first acquisition window;
acquire using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the second NMR signal is acquired using a second acquisition window different from the first acquisition window;
determine using the first NMR signal and the second NMR signal, a motion indicator data;
estimating a motion multiplier vector from at least the motion indicator data; and correcting the first NMR signal or the second NMR signal with the motion multiplier vector."
Claim 15 recites:
"15. A non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
acquiring using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the first NMR signal is acquired using a first acquisition window;
acquiring using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the second NMR signal is acquired using a second acquisition window different from the first acquisition window;
determining using the first NMR signal and the second NMR signal, a motion indicator data;
estimating a motion multiplier vector from at least the motion indicator data; and correcting the first NMR signal or the second NMR signal with the motion multiplier vector."
The highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises subject matter that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "… determining, using the first NMR signal and the second NMR signal, a motion indicator data;
estimating a motion multiplier vector from at least the motion indicator data; and correcting the first NMR signal or the second NMR signal with the motion multiplier vector." is a series of abstract process steps that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts/mental processes performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Nothing in the claim, other than the generically recited computer elements, precludes the identified abstract process steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
The highlighted portion of claim 9 comprises subject matter that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, " determining, using the first NMR signal and the second NMR signal, a motion indicator data;
estimating a motion multiplier vector from at least the motion indicator data; and correcting the first NMR signal or the second NMR signal with the motion multiplier vector." is a series of abstract process steps that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts/mental processes performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Nothing in the claim precludes the identified abstract process steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
The highlighted portion of claim 15 comprises subject matter that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "determining, using the first NMR signal and the second NMR signal, a motion indicator data;
estimating a motion multiplier vector from at least the motion indicator data; and correcting the first NMR signal or the second NMR signal with the motion multiplier vector." is a series of abstract process steps that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts/mental processes performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Nothing in the claim precludes the identified abstract process steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claims 1-20 applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most significant of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, claims 1-20 do not include any such improvements.
Regarding applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, claims 1-20 do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine. Claims 9-14 recite generic computer elements, but this is not sufficient to say that the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
Regarding adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, claims 1-20 do not appear to contain such a limitation.
Regarding applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(e)), claims 1-20 do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
claims 1-20 thus require further analysis under Step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 1: the additional element of acquiring, using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the first NMR signal is acquired using a first acquisition window merely relates to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). The additional element of acquiring, using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the second NMR signal is acquired using a second acquisition window different from the first acquisition window merely relates to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claim 1 therefore constitutes ineligible subject matter.
With regards to claim 9: the additional element of a magnet assembly configured to produce a magnetic field in a volume in the subterranean region; an antenna assembly configured to produce an excitation in the volume, and to receive NMR signals from the volume; and an acquisition system coupled to the antenna assembly and configured to: acquire a first NMR signal using a first acquisition window having a first duration; and acquire a second NMR signal using a second acquisition window having a second duration, wherein the second duration is different than the first duration; and a processor coupled to the acquisition system merely relates to conventionally known equipment for using an NMR tool for data gathering, as evidenced by Reiderman et al (US 11,422,283 B1, referenced below, see Fig. 1A). The additional elements of acquire using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the first NMR signal is acquired using a first acquisition window merely relate to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). The additional elements of acquire using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the second NMR signal is acquired using a second acquisition window different from the first acquisition window merely relate to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claim 9 therefore constitutes ineligible subject matter.
With regards to claim 15: the additional element of acquiring using an NMR sensor a first NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the first NMR signal is acquired using a first acquisition window merely relates to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). The additional element of acquiring using the NMR sensor a second NMR signal from a volume in the subterranean region, wherein the second NMR signal is acquired using a second acquisition window different from the first acquisition window merely relates to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). These elements thus fail the "significantly more" test under Step 2B. Claim 15 therefore constitutes ineligible subject matter.
Comments
The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claims 1, 9, and 15. Therefore, no prior art rejection for claims 1-20 is presented in this action. However, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. It is suggested to contact the Examiner for any clarification with respect the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Utsuzawa et al teaches a method for correcting motion effects.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
