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 .
Status of the claim
The argument received on May, 18 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May, 18 2026 with respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are moot because the new ground. However, since the arguments are related to current rejection, Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows:
On the pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “Amended claim 1 explicitly recites determining microseepage at the prospect oil field by performing sequential extraction of trace elements (TE) and/or heavy metals (HM) from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields, wherein the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength. Amended claim 1 further recites correlating detected concentration anomalies among the prospect, dry and proven fields, wherein correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index as a ratio of an elemental concentration of the TE and/or HM in the prospect field to a background concentration of the TE and/or HM in the dry field. Amended claim 1 further recites performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field. Accordingly, amended claim 1 recites a unitary, technical, and inventive solution to detect vertical microseepage and delineate the exploration potential of a prospect oil field through a specific, multi-stage physical laboratory process followed by a concrete field exploration activity. Consequently, amended claim 1 is not directed to non-statutory subject matter.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “determining microseepage at the prospect oil field by performing sequential extraction of trace elements and/or heavy metals from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields, wherein the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength (see paras. [0021], [0055], [0058], [0070] of instant application) are mental processing based on sequential extraction of trace elements and/or heavy metals from soil samples. The limitation of “the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength” merely describes the sequential extraction performed by abstract idea (i.e. determining microseepage). Further, the limitation of “correlating detected concentration anomalies among the prospect, dry and proven fields, wherein correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index as a ratio of an elemental concentration of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the prospect field to a background concentration of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the dry field“ is mathematical calculations (see paragraphs [0043], [0047], [0121]-[0180]). The limitation of “correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index” are indicative of mathematical calculations (see paragraphs [0043, [0047]). Further, the limitation of “receiving extracted trace element (TE) and/or heavy metal (HM) data from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields, the interpreter including: an extractor operable to perform sequential extraction of TE and/or HM from the soil samples in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength” are insignificant (gathering data) solution activity to perform abstract idea (visualizing, correlating, recommending steps). see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the limitation of “performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field” is broadly and generically recited such that it is the equivalent to “apply it” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant post-solution activity based on abstract idea (i.e., determining, visualizing, correlating, and recommending steps). see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or
integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for
example, how and or with what to perform exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematical calculations and mental processes. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments filed on May,1 8 2026 with respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground.
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 and 3-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field, the method comprising:
determining microseepage at the prospect oil field by performing sequential extraction of trace elements and/or heavy metals from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields, wherein the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength;
visualizing results of the sequential extraction in isoline maps;
using statistical clustering based on a machine learning model to detect concentration anomalies of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the isoline maps of the visualized results;
correlating detected concentration anomalies among the prospect, dry and proven fields, wherein correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index as a ratio of an elemental concentration of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the prospect field to a background concentration of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the dry field;
recommending for or against exploration of the prospect oil field depending on whether the concentration anomalies of the prospect field correlate with those of the proven field or the dry field; and
performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, The limitation of “determining microseepage at the prospect oil field by performing sequential extraction of trace elements and/or heavy metals from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields, wherein the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength (see paras. [0021], [0055], [0058], [0070] of instant application) are mental processing based on sequential extraction of trace elements and/or heavy metals from soil samples. The limitation of “the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength” merely describes the sequential extraction performed by abstract idea (i.e. determining microseepage). Further, the limitations of “visualizing results of the sequential extraction in isoline map (see paras. [0021]-[0023]: plotting a 2D graph of instant application),” “using statistical clustering based on a machine learning model to detect concentration anomalies of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the isoline maps of the visualized results (paras. [0021]-[0023], [0042]: statistical clustering and machine-learning techniques of instant application)” and “correlating detected concentration anomalies among the prospect, dry and proven fields, wherein correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index as a ratio of an elemental concentration of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the prospect field to a background concentration of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the dry field“ is mathematical calculations (see paragraphs [0043], [0047], [0121]-[0180]). The limitation of “correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index” are indicative of mathematical calculations (see paragraphs [0043], [0047]). Further, the limitation of “recommending for or against exploration of the prospect oil field depending on whether the concentration anomalies of the prospect field correlate with those of the proven field or the dry field (paras. [0043], [0048]: interpreter 202 including a recommender 222 of instant application)” are mental processes (i.e., evaluation or judgement) based on mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within the and/or “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a method for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field (preamble); performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field.
In Claim 8: a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field from trace elements (TE) and/or heavy metals (HM) extracted from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields (preamble); performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field; and
In Claim 15: a system for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field (preamble); an interpreter for receiving extracted trace element (TE) and/or heavy metal (HM) data from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields, the interpreter including: an extractor operable to perform sequential extraction of TE and/or HM from the soil samples in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength; an explorer operable to perform exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field from the recommender.
The additional elements of a method for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field,” “a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field from trace elements (TE) and/or heavy metals (HM) extracted from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields,” and “A system for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field” are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)). Further, The additional elements such as a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, system, interpreter, extractor, a visualizer, a correlator, an indexer, a recommender, and explorer are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical process addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the limitation of “receiving extracted trace element (TE) and/or heavy metal (HM) data from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field and dry and proven fields, the interpreter including: an extractor operable to perform sequential extraction of TE and/or HM from the soil samples in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength” are insignificant (gathering data) solution activity to perform abstract idea (visualizing, correlating, recommending steps). see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the limitation of “performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field” is broadly and generically recited such that it is the equivalent to “apply it” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant post-solution activity based on abstract idea (i.e., determining, visualizing, correlating, and recommending steps). see MPEP 2106.05(g).
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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or
integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for
example, how and or with what to perform exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematics and mental processes. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11 and 15. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 11, and 15 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 16,
The additional elements of “visualizing is further conducted using histograms” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Figs. 1-2 of Michaels; Figs. 22-23 of Chen (US 20170058666 A1); Figs. 3a and 3b of Friedmann (US 2012/0021476 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 17,
The additional elements of “the soil samples are obtained from a depth of about 10-40 cm” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (col. 3, lines 4-7 of Michaels; tables 2-3 and page 5, line 16, page 5, line 27- page 6, line 2 of Wang (AU (2020103813 A4); page 14, lines 12-14 of Sleat (WO 1991/002086 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 18,
The additional elements of “the soil samples have a mass of about 150-450 grams” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (col. 7, line 21 of Husz (DE 19513310 A1); page 14, lines 12-14 of Sleat (WO 1991/002086 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 19,
The additional elements of “the trace elements (TE) and/or heavy metals (HM) include As and Ti” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (col. 4, lines 40-47 of Michaels; paras. [0015]-[0020] and tables 3.1 and 3.2 of Auer (US 2013/0184149 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 20,
The additional elements of “the trace elements (TE) and/or heavy metals (HM) include one or more of As, Ti, Co, Cu, Ni, and V” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (col. 4, lines 40-47 of Michaels; paras. [0015]-[0020] and tables 3.1 and 3.2 of Auer (US 2013/0184149 A1); tables 1-2 of Friedmann (US 2012/0021476 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels et al. (US 5,055,397) in view of Nurgaliev et al. (RU 2781752 C1, hereinafter referred to as “Nurgaliev”) and Domic Mihovilovic et al. (US 2022/0356544 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Domic”) and Clark (US 5,385,827, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”) and
Regrading claim 1, Michaels teaches a method for determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field (co. 1, lines 16: oil exploration), the method comprising:
determining microseepage (col. 15, line 67-co. 16, line 2: the hydrocarbon tolerance data which are similarly posted and attached as FIGS. 7 and 8, support our discovery that the metals were chelated to hydrocarbons leaking from the reservoirs) at the prospect oil field by performing sequential extraction of trace elements and/or heavy metals from soil samples obtained at substantially surface level of the prospect oil field (col. 2, lines 56-57: heavy metals act as pathfinders for petroleum; col. 2, lines 59-64: by plotting the location of samples showing common heavy metal or hydrocarbon tolerances, we can develop heavy metal concentration contour maps, analogous to topographic contour maps, which help point to localized concentrations of minerals or petroleum) and dry and proven fields (col. 3, line 1: exploration on dry land);
visualizing results of the sequential extraction in isoline maps (col. 2, lines 59-64: see above).
Michaels does not specifically teach using statistical clustering based on a machine learning model to detect concentration anomalies of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the isoline maps of the visualized results, correlating detected concentration anomalies among the prospect, dry and proven fields; and
recommending for or against exploration of the prospect oil field depending on whether the concentration anomalies of the prospect field correlate with those of the proven field or the dry field.
However, Nurgaliev teaches using statistical clustering based on a machine learning model (page 7, lines 29-30: the integrated use of artificial neural networks, statistical and spectral-correlation algorithms, transform this array into a reservoir-permeability, oil and gas producing three-dimensional geological model) to detect concentration anomalies of the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals in the isoline maps of the visualized results (page 8, lines 12-15: build maps of their distribution isolines, analyze the data obtained and identify zones of epigenetic geochemical anomalies, the obtained materials are used to identify statistical samples of the distribution parameters of geochemical indicators of the study area, calculate the contrast ratios of geochemical indicators and rank correlation of the search sample, note that the above feature of “geochemical indicators” reads on “the extracted trace elements and/or heavy metals”),
correlating detected concentration anomalies (page 8, lines 12-15: build maps of their distribution isolines, analyze the data obtained and identify zones of epigenetic geochemical anomalies, the obtained materials are used to identify statistical samples of the distribution parameters of geochemical indicators of the study area, calculate the contrast ratios of geochemical indicators and rank correlation of the search sample) among the prospect, dry and proven fields (page 8, lines 12-15: study area),
recommending for or against exploration of the prospect oil field depending on whether the concentration anomalies of the prospect field correlate with those of the proven field or the dry field (page 8, lines 16-18: the conclusion about the oil bearing capacity of the study area is made on the basis of a comparison of the complex of obtained geophysical and geochemical data of the study area with a complex of the same features of an object with proven oil content); and
performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field (page 7, lines 4-5: Numerous researchers have established that intense natural electric fields are observed over oil and gas fields, which are genetically associated with hydrocarbon accumulation; page 9, lines 32-34: the essence is a method of geoelectric exploration, in which the field is excited by a generator loop at given points of the profile, the EMF of transients is measured at each point by an ungrounded measuring loop; page 12, line 28: exploration and appraisal wells, based on quantitative interpretation of geophysical data, note that the above feature of “Numerous researchers have established that intense natural electric fields are observed over oil and gas fields” in page 7, lines 4-5, “the EMF of transients is measured at each point by an ungrounded measuring loop;” in age 9, lines 32-34, and “quantitative interpretation of geophysical data” in page 12, line 28 reads on “performing exploration of the prospect oil field in response to a recommendation for exploration of the prospect oil field”).
Michaels and Nurgaliev are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of oil exploration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the using statistical clustering based on a machine learning model such as is described in Nurgaliev into Michaels, in order to improve the accuracy of estimates and reducing costs. EFFECT: increased reliability of forecasting hydrocarbon deposits (Nurgaliev, page 9, lines 14-15).
Michaels and Nurgaliev do not specifically teach that the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength.
However, Domic teaches that the sequential extraction is performed in multiple stages using a series of extraction solutions of increasing solubilization strength (paras. [0042]-[0051]: it is known in the state of the art that metal solubilization increases when diminishing the minerals granulometry to be processed….when applying the procedure described in the present invention, the solubilization of the mineralogical species of interest remains high, even when applied to minerals of higher granulometry, for example, 40 mm. This surprising effect is because the operational conditions of the procedure have been optimized, allowing to obtain a percentage of solubilization above 75% even at a coarser granulometry, as it is the case of the 40 mm already mentioned.).
Michaels and Domic are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of the solubilization of metals . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sequential extraction such as is described in Domic into Michaels, in order to allow the efficient optimization of the solubilization of metals of interest, either from concentrates (Domic, para. [0013]).
Michaels, Nurgaliev, and Domic do not specifically teach that correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index as a ratio of an elemental concentration in the prospect field to a background concentration in the dry field.
However, Clark teaches that correlating comprises normalizing the concentration data and calculating a response index as a ratio of an elemental concentration in the prospect field to a background concentration in the dry field (col. 10, lines 41-61: inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS) would be appropriate instrumental methods for determining the low nanogram/ml (part-per-billion) concentrations of trace elements, such as cobalt, zinc, and arsenic, which would be expected in Enzyme leach solutions of typical soil samples…ICP/MS was used to determine cobalt, zinc, and arsenic in the soil samples described herein. Since it is advisable to use an internal standard for ICP/MS determinations, in order to correct for instrumental drift, spikes of one or more elements should be added to normalize the ion counts between the sample solutions and standard solutions, note that the above feature of “plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS),” “sample solutions”, and “standard solutions” reads on “response index”, “an elemental concentration in the prospect field”, and “background concentration in dry field,” respectively).
Michaels and Clark are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of detecting surface areas containing excess localized anomalous concentrations of ore metals in comparison with their normal concentrations in the region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the normalizing the concentration data and calculating the response index and exploration of prospect field such as is described in Clark into Michaels, in order to provide an improved leaching solution capable of leaching trace elements and minerals from soils and (Clark, col. 3, lines 6-7). The leaching solution is then analyzed and the results utilized for geochemical prospecting functions (col. 3, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 3, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey, Domic, and Clark teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Michaels teaches that visualizing is further conducted using histograms (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey, Domic, and Clark teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Michaels teaches that the soil samples are obtained from a depth of about 10-40 cm (col. 3, lines 1-7: sediment samples obtained below a depth of about 0.5 meters, note that Michaels teaches a depth of about 0.5 meter, a depth of about 10-40 cm would be obvious variation of such method).
Regarding claim 6, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey, Domic, and Clark teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Michaels teaches that the trace elements (TE) and/or heavy metals (HM) include As and Ti (col. 4, lines 40-47: Other trace elements known to be associated with oils include B, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mn, Mo, Se, Sn, V, As, Hg, Cd, Pb, U, Be, Br, Ga, Ba, Ge, Sb, Re, Al, Ti, Sr, Ag, Au, and Rb. Any or all of these may prove to be useful pathfinders in the context of the exploration technique we have developed).
Regarding claim 7, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey, Domic, and Clark teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Michaels teaches that the trace elements (TE) and/or heavy metals (HM) include one or more of As, Ti, Co, Cu, Ni, and V (col. 4, lines 40-47: Other trace elements known to be associated with oils include B, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mn, Mo, Se, Sn, V, As, Hg, Cd, Pb, U, Be, Br, Ga, Ba, Ge, Sb, Re, Al, Ti, Sr, Ag, Au, and Rb. Any or all of these may prove to be useful pathfinders in the context of the exploration technique we have developed).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels in view of Nurgaliev, Domic, Clark, Husz et al. (DE 19513310 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Husz”), and Tiejie et al. (CN 102507547 A, hereinafter referred to as “Tiejie”).
Regarding claim 2, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey, Domic, and Clark teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Michaels and Nurgaliey do not specifically teach that the extraction is performed in multiple stages as follows: Stage 1: Deionized water for water-soluble forms of trace elements and heavy metals, Stage 2: Nitric acid (HNO3) for acid-soluble forms of trace elements and heavy metals, Stage 3: Acetate-ammonium buffer (AAB),
Stage 4: Mixed solution with weak organic acids.
However, Husz teaches
Stage 1: Deionized water for water-soluble forms of trace elements and heavy metals (col. 7, line 22-23: deionized, water),
Stage 2: Nitric acid (HNO3) for acid-soluble forms of trace elements and heavy metals (page 7, lines 38-39: HNO 3 ),
Stage 4: Mixed solution with weak organic acids (page 8, line 26: weak organic acids).
Michaels relates to exploration technique using surface samples including contamination of soil. Husz relates to determining contamination of contaminated soil samples. It is believed it would be obvious to incorporate feature of r determining contamination of contaminated soil samples into Michaels, because it allows the invention of Husz to be improved by determining contamination of contaminated soil samples. See MPEP 2143 (C), which notes that a proper rationale for a conclusion of obviousness is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of determining contamination of contaminated soil samples (page 7, line 28- page 8, line 37 of Husz) to known device, determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field (as disclosed by Michaels) in order to improve the accuracy of exploration because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Michaels, Domic, Clark, and Huse do not specifically teach that Acetate-ammonium buffer (AAB).
However, Tiejie teaches that Acetate-ammonium buffer (AAB) (page 8, line 13: ammonium acetate buffer).
Michaels relates to exploration technique using surface samples including contamination of soil. Tiejie relates to detecting waste oil (i.e., contaminated soil ). It is believed it would be obvious to incorporate feature of detecting waste oil (i.e., contaminated soil ) into Michaels, because it allows the invention of Tiejie to be improved by detecting wasted oil (i.e. contamination soil). See MPEP 2143 (C), which notes that a proper rationale for a conclusion of obviousness is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of detecting wasted oil (page 4, lines 15-30 of Husz) to known device, determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field (as disclosed by Michaels) in order to improve the accuracy of exploration because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels in view of Nurgaliev, Domic, Clark, and Sleat et al. (WO 1991/002086 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Sleat”).
Regarding claim 5, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey, Domic, and Clark teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Michaels does not specifically teaches that the soil samples have a mass of about 150-450 grams.
However, Sleat teaches that the soil samples have a mass of about 150-450 grams (page 14, lines 12-15: at each site, about 250 grams of soil sample was taken at a depth of 15 cm to 30 cm (six inches to one foot) (or below the root zone)).
Michaels and Sleat are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of oil exploration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the soil sample such as is described in Sleat into Michaels, in order to provide a method of assaying a plurality of sites across an exploration territory for subsurface oil or gas deposits (Sleat, page 8, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 8, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is an system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights