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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 22 December 2023 has been entered. After entry of the amendment, claims 1-17 are currently pending in the application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 5 and 10-11 recite particle sizes expressed in “mm”, however the specification recites “µm”.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claims 7-12, applicant needs to use consistent terminology when referring to the process steps. Note that in claim 7 applicant recites, for example, “step b.” however in claim 8, applicant recites “step (b)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to as it depends from claim 10 in 2 different instances.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 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.
In claim 1, it is unclear as to what is met by the phrase “viscous gel-based mattress” and therefore the claim is vague and indefinite.
In claim 6, the phrase “the viscous gel-based mattresses” lacks proper antecedent basis as claim 1 recites “mattress” not “mattresses”. It is unclear as to what is meant by the phrase “2.5 bbl/m of perforation, with a minimum of 60 bbl pumped per treatment” in reference to the composition. Applicant recites this as being a component present in the composition of mattresses however it is unclear as to what this has to do with a composition. What is “perforation”? Clarification is requested. The phrase “such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 7, part a. is vague and indefinite and it recites “the step of “processing of a material” however no active method steps are recited as to what is encompassed by “processing”. In part d. it is unclear as to how the gel-based mattress is prepared as no steps are presented.
Claim 11 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what is meant by “when the process of clam 10 is not effective in reducing fluid loss”. Clarification is requested.
In claim 13, the phrase “steps can be carried out” is indefinite as it is not a positive claim limitation. Either the steps are carried out in the vacuum chamber or they are not. Clarification is requested. The claim is also confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as the last step of the claim recites the placement of the calcite into bags however this claim ultimately depends from claim 7 which recites that the calcite is added to the viscous gel-based mattress. If claim 13 recites that the calcite is placed into bags then it is unclear as to how it can be added to the gel-based mattress which is a required step according to claim 7. Clarification is requested.
Claim 15 is vague and indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. The attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 16 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as applicant recites that the chemical tracer is “used” however it is unclear what the term encompasses. How is it used? Clarification is requested.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a claim directed to “Use of” is not drawn to a statutory category of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or render obvious all of the claimed limitations.
References Cited By The Examiner
JP 2004226330 A teaches a tracer base which is made of a high molecular compound such as polyethylene or polypropylene having a specific gravity lower than 1.0 and a natural mineral such as (limestone).
WO 2023/114893 A1 teaches calcium carbonate coated tracers for assessing acid stimulation operations in a hydrocarbon well.
The references fail to teach or render obvious the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights