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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims status/ Examiner’s Interview
Claims 1-16 were amended, claims 17-19 were added as new on 01/22/2026.
The applicant was not available for discussion, however the examiner suggested an interview maybe beneficial to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are 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.
Claims are 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.
Regarding claims 1-19, the term “a type of” is vague and a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “a type of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “a type of” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “a type of” occurs.
In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method of identifying a type of sedimentary system from a sample comprising the steps of: applying x-rays to a sample to obtain diffraction pattern data for the sample; calculating, with at least one processor, a March-Dollase orientation factor of a crystallographic plane of the sample based on the diffraction pattern data; and classifying, with the at least one processor, the calculated March-Dollase orientation factor to identify a type of clastic sedimentary system corresponding to the sample which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? there is no more additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there is no more additional elements. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible. Similar claims analysis for claim 2-8 as the dependent claims merely recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claims 2-8 not eligible as well.
Claim 9, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a sediment analyzer tool comprising: an X-ray diffraction device configured to apply x-rays to a sample to obtain diffraction pattern data for the sample; a computing device having a March-Dollase orientation factor calculator and a classifier implemented on at least one processor; wherein the March-Dollase orientation factor calculator is configured to calculate a March-Dollase orientation factor of a crystallographic plane of the sample based on the diffraction pattern data, and wherein the classifier is configured to classify the calculated March-Dollase orientation factor to identify a type of clastic sedimentary system corresponding to the sample which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? there is no more additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there is no more additional elements. Step 2B: No. claim 9 not eligible. Similar claims analysis for claim 10-15 as the dependent claims merely recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claims 10-15 not eligible as well.
Claim 16, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a sediment analyze tool comprising: non-transitory computer-readable memory having instructions executable by at least one processor to perform the following operations: calculating a March-Dollase orientation factor of a crystallographic plane of a sample based on diffraction pattern data obtained by an X-ray diffraction device, and classifying the calculated March-Dollase orientation factor to identify a type of clastic sedimentary system corresponding to the sample which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional element of an X-ray diffraction device configured to apply x-rays to a sample to obtain diffraction pattern data for the sample are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there is no more additional elements. Step 2B: No. claim 16 not eligible.
Similar claims analysis for claim 17-19 as the dependent claims merely recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claims 17-19 not eligible as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Abbott (United State Patent Application 2006/0252031 A1, Date Published: 2006-11-09).
Regarding claim 1:
Abbott described a method of identifying a type of sedimentary system from a sample comprising the steps of: applying x-rays (0073, x-rays) to a sample to obtain diffraction pattern data for the sample (0071); calculating, with at least one processor, a March-Dollase orientation factor of a crystallographic plane of the sample based on the diffraction pattern data (0254, crystallographic texture equivalent of March-Dollase); and classifying, with the at least one processor, the calculated March-Dollase orientation factor to identify a type of clastic sedimentary system corresponding to the sample (0064, soil sample or any sample, 0254).
Regarding claim 9:
Abbott described a sediment analyzer tool comprising: an X-ray diffraction device configured to apply x-rays to a sample (0073, x-rays) to obtain diffraction pattern data for the sample (0071); a computing device having a March-Dollase orientation factor calculator and a classifier (0254, crystallographic texture equivalent of March-Dollase); implemented on at least one processor (0014, ; parallel processing of samples suspected of containing an analyte); wherein the March-Dollase orientation factor calculator is configured to calculate a March-Dollase orientation factor of a crystallographic plane of the sample based on the diffraction pattern data (0254, crystallographic texture equivalent of March-Dollase), and wherein the classifier is configured to classify the calculated March-Dollase orientation factor to identify a type of clastic sedimentary system corresponding to the sample (0064, soil sample or any sample, 0254).
. Regarding claim 16:
Abbott described a sediment analyser tool comprising: an x-ray diffraction device configured to apply x-rays to a sample to obtain diffraction pattern data for the sample (0045, any sample, 0064, any type of soil, 0073, x-rays); non-transitory computer-readable memory having instructions executable by at least one processor to perform the following operations: calculating a March-Dollase orientation factor of a crystallographic plane of a sample (0254, crystallographic texture equivalent of March-Dollase) based on diffraction pattern data (0071) obtained by an X-ray diffraction device (0073, x-rays), and classifying the calculated March-Dollase orientation factor to identify a type of clastic sedimentary system corresponding to the sample (0064, soil sample or any sample, 0254).
Regarding claims 2, 10 Abbott further described determining a diffraction angle (0254, angles) corresponding to a maximum in a detected intensity level in the diffraction pattern data (0241, Max).
Regarding claims 3, 11, Abbott further described calculating the March-Dollase (0254) orientation factor at the quartz plane orientation (0120, quartz formation).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 Abbott further described sedimentary system includes one or more of fluvial, lake, interdune, or dune types of sedimentary systems (0064, any type of soil, crystals).
Regarding claim 6, Abbott further described outputting data about the identified type of clastic sedimentary system (0064, any type of soil, crystals).
Regarding claim 7, 15, Abbott further described displaying output data about the identified type of clastic sedimentary system on a display view of a display device (0064, any type of soil, crystals, 0081, displayed).
Regarding claim 8, Abbott further described at least one of fluvial, lake, interdune, and dune types of sedimentary systems for a wellfield (0064, any type of soil).
Regarding claim 14, Abbott further described wherein the classifer is further configured to output data about the identified type of clastic sedimentary system (0064, any type of soil) or storage in a non-transitory computer-readable memory, transmission over a data network, or display on a display device (0081, displayed).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered, the argument as follow:
A. Applicant argues in the arguments as follow:
1. “a type of” is not vague and refers to a region having similar sedimentary composition, not limited to, geographic areas, hydrocarbon reservoirs or basins suitable for gas or oil wellfields, drilling, hydraulic fracking, or other petroleum or extractive industry activity.
The term seems open and no boundary and lack of standard for measuring the degree intended, the claim rejected under 112 2nd appears proper ( Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
Applicant argue 101 rejection not proper because is a “physical operation” and apply ‘x-ray……” not abstract idea and meaningful limitation.
Appears the “physical operation” are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application, see detailed 101 analysis.
Apply ‘x-ray……” seems can be accomplish by human activity which included the area of abstract idea of mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2)). As regards to August 4, 2025 SME memorandum this does not apply because the activity described above can be accomplish by human activity.
the prior art lack apply of x-ray (page 15-16 of the argument)
PNG
media_image1.png
282
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The reflect light are indeed the result of applying x-rays even the applicant admitted that limitation, the claim is broad enough to read on the claim.
In view of the above analysis, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant argument, applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Contact information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
February 3, 2026