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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/28/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/30/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 12, 17, 18, 20-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-8, 12, 17, 18, 20-26, the reference characters should be enclosed within parentheses (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “a plurality of input variables” appears to be amended to recite “the plurality of input variables”.
Regarding claim 18, lines 4, 6, the recitation “an injection rate”, “a mixed fluid” and “an injection time” appears to be amended to recite “the injection rate”, “the mixed fluid” and “the injection time” respectively.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation “an injection rate” appears to be amended to recite “the injection rate”.
Regarding claim 1, line 20, the recitation “variables” needs to be clarified to indicate if this refers to “a plurality of input variables” recited in claim 1, lines 14-15 or additional. For examination purposes, examiner construes “variables” recited in claim 1 as being same as “a plurality of input variables”. Same objection applies to claims 18, 21 for reciting “variables”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the injection rate” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the injection concentration” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “a total number of injection operations” in lines 2-3 needs to be clarified to indicate if this refers to “a plurality of injection operations” recited in claim 1 or additional.
Regarding claim 8, line 19, the recitation “variables” needs to be clarified to indicate if this refers to “a plurality of input variables” recited in claim 8, line 13 or additional. For examination purposes, examiner construes “variables” recited in claim 8 as being same as “a plurality of input variables”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the injection rate” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the injection concentration” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “a two or more of a total number of injection operations” in lines 4-5 needs to be clarified to indicate if this refers to “a plurality of injection operations” recited in claim 1 or additional.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “each injection operation” in lines 2-3 needs to be clarified regarding which injection operation is being discussed since claim 1 recites two sets of injection operations: one for a fixed concentration section and other for being a fixed rate section.
Regarding claim 24, the recitation “an operation” in lines 7 and 9 needs to be amended to clarify if these refers to one of the operations recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 recites same limitation as recited in claim 12 and therefore fails to further limit the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 12, 17, 18 and 20-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection and/or rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 8 are amended to include the subject matter from previously presented, now cancelled claim 19 which was previously indicated allowable if rewritten in an independent form in an Office Action mailed on 10/30/2025.
Claims 2-7, 12, 17, 18 and 20-26 being dependent on either claims 1 or 8 are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 1/28/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILAY J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-9689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, CHELSEA STINSON can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/NILAY J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights