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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 3/30/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered. With regards to the 35 U.S.C.§ 101 Examiner notes that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore the amended claims do not overcome the 101 Rejection. Examiner further notes that the amended claim required new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to Claim 1 the limitations applying a moving average to the original dataset to obtain a despiked dataset; performing a dimensional reduction of the despiked dataset to identify a first set of outliers; excluding the first set of outliers from; performing a robustfit regression on the low dimensional dataset to obtain a second set of outliers; excluding the second set of outliers identified by the robust fit regression; and reconstructing the optical spectral data of the reservoir fluid without well fluid using the robust fit regression; This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by Formula 1 which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.In particular, the claim recites the additional element – obtaining an original dataset of optical spectral data of a reservoir fluid contaminated with a well fluid;
However this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this limitations is viewed as mere data gathering. As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is viewed as insignificant extrasolution activity as mere data gathering in an conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Chok (US 2017/0270227 A1)
Jones (US 2013/0340518 A1)
Gzara (US 2016/0230548 A1) Pop (US 2015/0211363 A1) Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception. Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 2-10 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “despiking an original dataset” and “excluding the first set of outliers from a principal component analysis score and a principal component analysis loading”. However “an original dataset”, “principal component analysis score and a principal component analysis loading”, were never obtained or measured, so it is not clear where these limitation comes from and is therefore indefinite. Claim 1 recites “low dimensional dataset” The term low is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term low is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites “identify a first set of outliers”. However it is not clear what this is referring to and is therefore indefinite. Claim 1 recites “excluding the first set of outliers”, and “excluding the second set of outliers”. However it is not clear what we are excluding from and is therefore indefinite. Claim 1 recites “excluding the second set of outliers identified by the robustfit regression. However there are no second set of outliers identified by the robustfit regression and therefore is indefinite. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pop (US 2015/0211363 A1) teaches data representing the measured properties is analyzed and a characteristic of interest is determined through extrapolation from the analyzed data. The data may then be filtered and smoothed (block 206). For example, a de-spiking filter, such as a median filter, may be applied to the formation fluid property data to remove outliers. Further, a smoothing filter, such as a second-order Savitsky-Golay filter, may be applied to the de-spiked formation fluid property data.
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 YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights