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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 7/16/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 07/16/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 6 and 11 are amended, and Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12 and 15 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 07/16/2026 with respect to
the rejection of claims 1-15 directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. (See the detailed response presented below).
On pages 6-11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant alleges that independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented geological modeling workflow executed in three-dimensional basin-modeling software, not to an abstract idea. … These operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind, nor with pen and paper, and therefore do not recite a mental process … the claims integrate those relationships into a practical application by improving geological exploration technology. … introduces a new basin-modeling workflow that quantitatively integrates microbial transformation ratio and depositional rate in a 3D geological framework to predict favorable microbial gas accumulations. This is a technical improvement to subsurface resource evaluation, not mere data manipulation. … As amended, the claims recite a specific, non-conventional combination of steps executed m basin-modeling software to solve a long-standing technical problem in microbial gas exploration, which is identifying favorable microbial gas accumulations in sedimentary basins where traditional thermogenic models fail. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations of “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map by simulating microbial gas generation kinetics over time and temperature”, “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average deposition rate map by computing depositional rates over an age span from a base of the source rock interval to present day and normalizing the deposition rate map such that values are between O and 1” and “generating, by the one or more processors, a favorability index map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation by multiplying, on a cell-by-cell basis, the MTR map and the normalized average deposition rate map” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map, manually calculating or inferring the average deposition rate map using a modeling software, and manually calculating or inferring the favorability index map by a mathematical process such as multiplying/combining based on the mathematical results. (See paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0033-0034).
The limitation of “determining, using a three-dimensional basin modeling software executed by one or more processors, microbial gas source rock intervals based on at least total organic carbon data and a temperature isothermal depth defining a methanogenesis zone” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to collect routine data (i.e., microbial gas source rock intervals) used for perform mathematical calculations, where it does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to, for example, determine the microbial gas source rock intervals, where the total organic carbon data and the temperature isothermal depth are indicative of types of data used in the preferred technical field of use. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The limitation of “displaying, on a graphical display, the favorability index map” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to display the mathematical result of the favorability index map, is performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to, for example, determine the microbial gas source rock intervals and/or generate the favorability index map. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Claim 1 does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to generating the map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, there is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine. (See the detailed rationale set forth below).
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A computer-implemented method for generating a map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation, comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
a. determining, using a three-dimensional basin modeling software executed by one or more processors, microbial gas source rock intervals based on at least total organic carbon data and a temperature isothermal depth defining a methanogenesis zone;
“determining, using a three-dimensional basin modeling software executed by one or more processors, microbial gas source rock intervals …” is an insignificant pre-solution activity to collect routine data with which abstract idea is performed.
No practical application because it presents without specific feature/structure/act how and/or what to determine the rock intervals.
“a three-dimensional basin modeling software” is a mathematical concept/algorithm related to data process to obtain routine data.
“one or more processors” is a high-level of generality.
b. generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map by simulating microbial gas generation
kinetics over time and temperature;
c. generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average deposition rate map by computing depositional rates over an age span from a base of the source rock interval to present day and normalizing the deposition rate map such that values are between O and 1;
abstract idea
mathematical process
“generating … an average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map … by simulating …” is a math process and/or a data processing itself which is executed/computed using a modeling software (para 0033-0034).
“generating … an average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map … by computing …” is a math process and/or a data processing itself which is executed using a modeling software and by computing average dispositional rate (para 0027-0029, 0033-0034).
d. generating, by the one or more processors, a favorability index map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation by multiplying, on a cell-by-cell basis, the MTR map and the normalized average deposition rate map, and
abstract idea
mathematical concept
“generating … a favorability index map …” is a math process and/or data processing, which may be executed by a generic computer to calculate a favorability index map by mathematical calculation such as multiplying/combining based on the mathematical results (i.e., two type of average maps) (para 0033-0034).
e. displaying, on a graphical display, the favorability index map.
“display …” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
“a graphical display” is a high-level of generality.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12 and 15 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. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map by simulating microbial gas generation kinetics over time and temperature” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map, which is indicative of a mathematical process and/or data processing itself using a modeling software (i.e., mathematical algorithm related to calculating the average map and/or executing data processing) (see paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0033-0034), where the simulating is indicative of mathematical calculations related to data processing itself to be performed by the modeling software. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Similarly, “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average deposition rate map by computing depositional rates over an age span from a base of the source rock interval to present day and normalizing the deposition rate map such that values are between O and 1” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the average deposition rate map using a modeling software (i.e., mathematical algorithm related to calculating the average map and/or executing data processing), which is indicative of a mathematical process and/or data processing itself by computing/calculating the average dispositional rate using a mathematical equation, where “computing depositional rates over an age span from a base of the source rock interval to present day and normalizing the deposition rate map such that values are between O and 1” is indicative of mathematical calculations using a mathematical formula (see paragraphs 0033-0034). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitation of “generating, by the one or more processors, a favorability index map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation by multiplying, on a cell-by-cell basis, the MTR map and the normalized average deposition rate map” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the favorability index map by a mathematical process such as multiplying/combining based on the mathematical results (i.e., two type of average maps). (See paragraphs 0033-0034). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of one or more processors to perform mathematical calculations and/or data processing of “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map by simulating microbial gas generation kinetics over time and temperature”, “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average deposition rate map by computing depositional rates over an age span from a base of the source rock interval to present day and normalizing the deposition rate map such that values are between O and 1” and “generating, by the one or more processors, a favorability index map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation by multiplying, on a cell-by-cell basis, the MTR map and the normalized average deposition rate map”. The limitation of “determining, …, microbial gas source rock intervals based on at least total organic carbon data and a temperature isothermal depth defining a methanogenesis zone” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to collect routine data (i.e., microbial gas source rock intervals) used for perform mathematical calculations, where it does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to, for example, determine the microbial gas source rock intervals, where the total organic carbon data and the temperature isothermal depth are indicative of types of data used in the preferred technical field of use. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The limitation of “using a three-dimensional basin modeling software executed by one or more processors” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to execute the software, which is performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component, to thereby collect routine data. The additional elements of the one or more processors and the graphical display are high-level of generalities to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The limitation of “displaying, on a graphical display, the favorability index map” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to display the mathematical result of the favorability index map, is performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to, for example, determine the microbial gas source rock intervals and/or generate the favorability index map. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Claim 1 does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to generating the map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, there is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of ““determining, …, microbial gas source rock intervals based on at least total organic carbon data and a temperature isothermal depth defining a methanogenesis zone” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to collect routine data (i.e., microbial gas source rock intervals) used for perform mathematical calculations, where it does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to, for example, determine the microbial gas source rock intervals. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “using a three-dimensional basin modeling software executed by one or more processors” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to execute the software, which is performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component, to thereby collect routine data. The limitation of “displaying, on a graphical display, the favorability index map” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to display the mathematical result of the favorability index map, is performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. As discussed above, “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average microbial transformation ratio (MTR) map by simulating microbial gas generation kinetics over time and temperature”, “generating, within the three-dimensional basin modeling software, an average deposition rate map by computing depositional rates over an age span from a base of the source rock interval to present day and normalizing the deposition rate map such that values are between O and 1” and “generating, by the one or more processors, a favorability index map indicating areas that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation by multiplying, on a cell-by-cell basis, the MTR map and the normalized average deposition rate map” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitations of “wherein the microbial gas source rock intervals include preexisting hydrocarbon accumulations” in Claim 2, and “wherein the determining microbial gas source rock intervals includes determining a 80° C temperature isothermal depth as base of a methanogenesis zone” in Claim 5 are a field of use recitation so they are not a practical application.
Regarding Claim 6, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the processors and the memory are high-level of generalities recited to merely perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The additional limitation of “one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the system” is an insignificant pre-solution activity to merely perform a generic computer function (i.e., executing software programs stored in the memory) of a generic computer component.
Regarding Claims 7 and 10, they are dependent on claim 6 and have similar limitations as of claims 2 and 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claims 2 and 5 above.
Regarding Claim 11, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 6 above.
Regarding Claims 12 and 15, they are dependent on claim 11 and have similar limitations as of claims 2 and 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2-5 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Formolo et al. (US 2017/0166947 A1) teaches methods of estimating a volume of a biogenic gas for an area of interest, where the method includes predicting a methanogenesis rate for one or more of the periods of time for the area of interest based on energy available for microbial activity and calculating the volume of the biogenic gas based on the predicted methanogenesis rate for the one or more of the periods of time for the area of interest; analytical measurements may be taken of sediments that host microbial gas generation to determine such thermodynamic conditions ... environmental (locations) and/or biological characteristics are determined and input into the model; published methanogenesis rates from multiple global locations. The rates determined using the methods described herein and the rates using published models are the same order of magnitude; model captures the control that the environmental geochemical and biological conditions, specifically the H2 concentration, have on the free energy available to the microbial community and the ability to generate microbial methane in biogenic gas systems. Thus, constraining methane generation based upon the free-energy gain required to support the microbial activity and the H2 availability allows for more accurate estimations of the volume of biogenic gas; samples may include water column samples, rock samples, sediment samples, and/or rock; operations are performed concurrently with respect to each other if the first time period and second time period overlap or the first time period and the second time period are performed within the same time interval; model will terminate if the reaction becomes energetically unfavorable to continue methanogenesis or the time window has reached its end. At block 308, a series of methanogenic rates are calculated at the conditions for each time step and temperature of interest. At block 310, the series of methanogenic rates calculated at each time step may be used to calculate a volume of biogenic gas in the area of interest. Hydrocarbons may be extracted from the area of interest using the predicted biogenic gas generation.
ASHBY et al. (US 2018/0163234 A1) teaches “generating a map indicating areas (formation properties, Para. [0642]) that are favorable for microbial gas generation and accumulation (Core description, geophysical logs, and permeability/porosity data may be used to identify target wells, optimize injection intervals, and improve biogenic gas production; changes in the production water, methane production, and/or microbial composition over time; generating a favorability (the consensus and/or optimal nutrient mix is also designed to decrease the amount of other (non-methanogenic) bacterial processes affecting biogas formation, or to provide an environment unfavorable to endemic microbes or conditions that show a negative correlation to biogas (e.g., methane) formation (see paragraphs 0504, 0642, 0567-0568, 0030).
Gates et al. (US 2011/0250582 A1) teaches automatically determine what adjustments can be made to the injection and/or production processes so as to enhance the production of biogenerated gas from the zone; reservoir geological environment can be carried out using geophysical and geological mapping procedures. The relative volumes and spatial arrangements of oil layers and water layers in the reservoir can control the net rates of biodegradation; generation can be accomplished using an injected sparge gas, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide or methane, or microbial generation of large enough quantities of microbially generated gases; combination with changes in gas saturation related to microbial gas generation occurring in the reservoir, the reservoir is maintained at a gas saturation above the critical gas saturation and gas production; samples of produced fluid, including gas, oil and water, can be taken at intervals ranging from days to weeks. The fluid can be prepared for isotopic analysis using isotope ratio mass spectrometry.
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 BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights