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 .
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, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A device/method/system.
Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claims recite the sequence of extracting lithium from a fluid sample after separating hydrocarbon and determining the lithium concentration in the fluid sample. This step sequence as analyzed can “practically be performed in the Human Mind” with/without sketching on paper. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Mental Processes, “A claim that encompasses a Human Performing the step(s) mentally with or without a physical aid recites a mental process”; as a result, the claim recites a mental process that falls within at least one of the abstract idea groupings (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims: Obtaining a fluid sample and powering the modules and the microprocessor (Insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), when viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional steps/actions/elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, these additional steps/actions/elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (MPEP 2106. 5: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more):
The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, obtaining a fluid sample and powering the modules and the microprocessor, are well known in the field as evidenced by the cited prior art in the rejection below, do not amount significant to add an inventive concept to the claims, because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claim(s) 1-2, 10-13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al. (US 12332400) in view of Alshammari et al. (US 2022/0136388 Schmidt (US 2023/0014044).
Regarding to claims 1, 10, 17:
Prasad et al. discloses a lithium logging tool coupled to a wireline extending downward into a wellbore, comprising:
a sampling module configured for obtaining a sample of a fluid from the wellbore (FIG. 2: Receiving a sample of lithium-containing fluid 60 into the downhole tool 50); and
a lithium concentration module configured for extracting lithium from the sample (FIG. 2, element 10: The lithium detection system 10 is implemented in a downhole tool); and
a microprocessor (FIG. 2, element CONTROLLER 32) configured for analyzing a set of data related to the fluid in periodic intervals and determining a concentration of lithium in the sample (Abstract: The control system is configured to determine a lithium concentration. Column 7, lines 58-62: The measurements of the lithium concentration is performed over a time period to provide “on the fly” measurements).
Prasad et al. however does not teach separating hydrocarbons from the sample.
Schmidt discloses a method in a concentrating lithium process from a brine comprising a brine pretreatment, in which contaminants, such as hydrocarbons, are separated and removed to minimize the impurities in lithium brines (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s method to include separating and removing contaminants, such as hydrocarbons, to minimize the impurities in lithium brines as taught by Schmidt (paragraph [0004]).
Prasad et al. also is silent about a power module configured for providing power to the sampling and separation module and the microprocessor.
Alshammari et al. discloses a downhole tool for sampling a fluid in a wellbore (Abstract), comprising a controller (FIG. 2, element 124), other electrical components (FIG. 2, elements 156, 144), and a battery (FIG. 2, element 118) for powering the controller and the other electrical components in the tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s tool to include a battery to power all electrical/electronic components in the tool so they are able to operate as designed as taught by Alshammari et al. (Fig. 2).
Prasad et al., in addition, teaches measuring flow of the fluid in the wellbore (column 7, lines 50-60: The processor may determine the flow rate of the sample fluid), but is silent about an integrated spinner flowmeter that is configured for measuring flow of the fluid in the wellbore.
discloses a for fluid comprising a
spinner flowmeter to provide the flow information
The cited prior art also teaches the following claims:
Regarding to claims 2, 11: wherein the fluid is reservoir brine (Schmidt: paragraph [0002]: Oilfield brine).
Prosecution Insights