Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/476,994

LITHIUM LOGGING TOOL FOR LITHIUM CONCENTRATION DETERMINATION IN RESERVOIR BRINES

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Sep 28, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, LAM S
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Saudi Arabian Oil Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1093 granted / 1391 resolved
+10.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1452
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1391 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
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 . In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1-4, 10-13, 17, and 19 for further examination. As a result, claims 5-9, 14-16, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further prosecution. 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) 1-4, 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) and 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). 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). Regarding to claims 3-4, 12-13, 19: further comprising a flowmeter configured for measuring flow of the fluid in the wellbore, wherein the flowmeter is a spinner flowmeter (Prasad et al.: column 7, lines 50-60: The processor may determine the flow rate of the sample fluid. In addition, a spinner flowmeter is a conventional tool to measure the fluid flow rate in a wellbore. Please see Waid et al. (US 5831177), column 1, line 57 to column 2, line 17). CONTACT INFORMATION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151. 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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599155
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF NON-LINEAR COOK TIME ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590890
SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS DEVICE, SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589490
CAPABILITIES FOR ERROR CATEGORIZATION, REPORTING AND INTROSPECTION OF A TECHNICAL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579661
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND STORAGE MEDIUMS FOR FLOW VELOCITY DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578394
BATTERY MANAGEMENT APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+0.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1391 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month