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) submitted on 10/03/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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;
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; 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.
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 limitations of “determining exploration potential of a prospect oil field (see par. [0047]: interpreter including analyzer 210 and machine learning 216 of instant application),” “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 (see paras. [0021], [0055], [0058] of instant application) are mental processing based on sequential extraction of trace elements and/or heavy metals from soil samples. 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 (para. [0067] of instant application)” are mathematical calculations. 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: none
In Claim 11: a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program (preamble);
In Claim 15; a system (preamble);
The additional elements such as a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program and system are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
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”).
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), 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 (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).
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).
Regarding claim 3, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey 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 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 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 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 further in view of 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 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 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 further in view of Sleat et al. (WO 1991/002086 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Sleat”).
Regarding claim 5, Michaels in view of Nurgaliey 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yan et al. (CN 111948374 A) teaches that the technical field of shale gas exploration and development, claims a geochemical identification method and system of rich organic substance layer section in mud shale, collecting mud shale sample, and the collected mud shale sample for main element and microelement test; analyzing and calculating the earth chemical element, respectively obtaining redox index, biological productivity index and land source debris input index; based on pre-established rich organic shale geochemical identification standard, carrying out rich organic shale geochemical identification.
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 RODARK 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