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) was submitted on 10/23/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-7 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim limitation of “when c(V)>Fl, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential; … when c(V)>2, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential; … when c(V)>F3, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential; … when c(Al+Si+Mg)>F4, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential; … discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential in the remaining cases” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to indicate what sample/element/characteristic/content is subject to being discriminated as a poor metallogenic potential or a better metallogenic potential based on the conditions related to each discriminant factor. Note that a metallogenic potential of the skarn deposit is subject to being discriminated as poor or better based on the conditions related to each discriminant factor, as the descriptions related to the claim limitation is disclosed in Para 0067-0072 of the instant application.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A method for evaluating a metallogenic potential of a skarn deposit based on the magnetite composition, comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
(1) collecting geological, geophysical, geochemical, and remote sensing data in a studying area, systematically, and delineating a favorable area for mineralization;
(2) collecting magnetite-bearing samples in the favorable area for mineralization by zoning, and describing the lithology, alteration and mineralization characteristics of each sample;
“collecting geological, geophysical …” and “collecting magnetite-bearing samples …” are insignificant extra-solution activities to collect routine data used for perform a mathematical process.
“delineating a favorable area for mineralization” and “describing the lithology, alteration and mineralization characteristics of each sample” are a math or mental process.
(3) selecting representative magnetite samples for chemical analysis to obtain
average contents of trace elements Ti, Ni, V, K and Al+Si+Mg, denoted as c(Ti), c(Ni), c(V), c(K), and c(Al+Si+Mg) in ppm; and
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“selecting representative magnetite samples … obtain average contents …” is a math process.
(4) calculating a discriminant factor F1 by substituting c(Ni) into
F1=-3.1484*c(Ni)+13.301, and when c(V)>Fl, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential;
comparing c(V) with a discriminant factor F2=2, and when c(V)>2, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential;
calculating a discriminant factor F3 by substituting c(K) into F3=0.0437*c(K)+0.4093, and when c(V)>F3, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential;
calculating a discriminant factor F4 by substituting c(Ti) into
F4= -115.11 *c(Ti)+34361, and when c(Al+Si+Mg)>F4, discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential, and otherwise, discriminating as a better metallogenic potential; and
when the four discriminant factors all discriminate the metallogenic potential to be better, determining the skarn deposit in the favorable area for mineralization to have a good metallogenic potential; and discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential in the remaining cases.
abstract idea
mathematical concept
“calculating a discriminant factor … comparing c(V) with a discriminant factor F2=2 … calculating a discriminant factor F3 … calculating a discriminant factor F4 by substituting …” is a math process. (See para 0045-0052).
discriminant factors (F1, F2, F3 and F4) are mathematical concepts/factors.
“determining the skarn deposit …; and discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential” is a math or mental process based on the previous math calculations.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 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. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “delineating a favorable area for mineralization” and “describing the lithology, alteration and mineralization characteristics of each sample” in the context of this claim may encompass manually describing or inferring the favorable area, the lithology, alteration and mineralization characteristics based on the collected routine data (i.e., geological, geophysical, geochemical, and remote sensing data, and magnetite-bearing samples), which is indicative of mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind or mathematical calculations such as an arithmetic data processing performed by a generic computer component. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Similarly, “selecting representative magnetite samples for chemical analysis to obtain average contents of trace elements Ti, Ni, V, K and Al+Si+Mg, denoted as c(Ti), c(Ni), c(V), c(K), and c(Al+Si+Mg) in ppm” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the average contents by selecting representative magnetite, which is indicative of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, “calculating a discriminant factor … comparing c(V) with a discriminant factor F2=2 … calculating a discriminant factor F3 … calculating a discriminant factor F4 by substituting …” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring, based on the collected data, the discriminant factors, which is indicative of mathematical concepts/values/amounts. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, “when the four discriminant factors all discriminate the metallogenic potential to be better, determining the skarn deposit in the favorable area for mineralization to have a good metallogenic potential; and discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential in the remaining cases” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the skarn deposit based on the previous mathematical calculations. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a data processing software to perform mathematical calculations or mental processes of “delineating a favorable area for mineralization”, “describing the lithology, alteration and mineralization characteristics of each sample”, “selecting representative magnetite samples for chemical analysis to obtain average contents of trace elements Ti, Ni, V, K and Al+Si+Mg, denoted as c(Ti), c(Ni), c(V), c(K), and c(Al+Si+Mg) in ppm”, “calculating a discriminant factor … comparing c(V) with a discriminant factor F2=2 … calculating a discriminant factor F3 … calculating a discriminant factor F4 by substituting …” and “when the four discriminant factors all discriminate the metallogenic potential to be better, determining the skarn deposit in the favorable area for mineralization to have a good metallogenic potential; and discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential in the remaining cases”. The limitations of “collecting geological, geophysical, geochemical, and remote sensing data in a studying area, systematically” and “collecting magnetite-bearing samples in the favorable area for mineralization by zoning” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely collect routine data (i.e., geological, geophysical, geochemical, and remote sensing data, and magnetite-bearing samples) to be used for performing the abstract idea as addressed above. 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 how and or with what to evaluate the metallogenic potential of the skarn deposit. (See MPEP 2106.04(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.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “collecting geological, geophysical, geochemical, and remote sensing data in a studying area, systematically” and “collecting magnetite-bearing samples in the favorable area for mineralization by zoning” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely collect routine data (i.e., geological, geophysical, geochemical, and remote sensing data, and magnetite-bearing samples) to be used for performing the abstract idea as addressed above. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the computer system to perform “delineating a favorable area for mineralization”, “describing the lithology, alteration and mineralization characteristics of each sample”, “selecting representative magnetite samples for chemical analysis to obtain average contents of trace elements Ti, Ni, V, K and Al+Si+Mg, denoted as c(Ti), c(Ni), c(V), c(K), and c(Al+Si+Mg) in ppm”, “calculating a discriminant factor … comparing c(V) with a discriminant factor F2=2 … calculating a discriminant factor F3 … calculating a discriminant factor F4 by substituting …” and “when the four discriminant factors all discriminate the metallogenic potential to be better, determining the skarn deposit in the favorable area for mineralization to have a good metallogenic potential; and discriminating as a poor metallogenic potential in the remaining cases” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2, 4-7, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitations of “recording a drill hole number and a drill hole depth, taking a field picture, and making a detailed field record at each sample collecting position; wherein the number of the samples is not less than five” in Claim 2 may encompass manually recording such data as the drill hole number, the drill hole and the detailed field record, and taking a picture, which is indicative of mental processes related to concepts performed in the human mind or by organizing a human activity. The limitation of “performing in-situ micro-area elemental analysis by using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry to obtain recorded data for each analytical point” in Claim 4 may encompass manually calculating or inferring the analysis to thereby obtain the recorded data, which is indicative of mathematical concepts and/or data processing itself performed by a generic computer component. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of “processing the recorded data obtained from the chemical analysis by using data processing software … data exporting, namely summarizing and batch-exporting interpreted and screened micro-area data for each single point into a file in a csv format” in Claim 5 may encompass mathematical calculations such as data processing for the recorded data performed by the data processing software. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of “selecting the representative magnetite samples for chemical analysis to obtain average contents of trace elements … calculating the discriminant factors … performing diagram projection on data of sample collecting points with” in Claim 6, and “selecting the representative magnetite samples … calculating the discriminant factors … performing diagram projection on data of sample collecting points with …” in Claim 7 may encompass manually calculating or inferring the discriminant factors (i.e., F1 ~ F4) which are mathematical concepts/values/amounts. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The limitations of “collecting magnetite-bearing samples in an area where the skarn deposit is known to have a good metallogenic potential and an area where the skarn deposit is known to have a poor metallogenic potential, respectively” in Claim 6 and “collecting magnetite-bearing samples in an area where the skarn deposit is known to have a good metallogenic potential and an area where the skarn deposit is known to have a poor metallogenic potential, respectively” in Claim 7 is an insignificant extra-solution activity to merely gather routine data (i.e., magnetite-bearing samples) used for performing mathematical calculations in the following steps recited in Claim 6 and 7 respectively. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 1, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WU, SONG et al. (CN 115078520 A) teaches the system to collect all the acidic rock mass in the target area, describing the lithology of each sample, alteration and mineralization feature, a method for evaluating mineral property of porphyry system based on mineral earth chemistry, using total rock earth chemistry and mineral chemical parameters to indicate the mineral forming potential of the rock, where the specific steps are as follows: according to the porphyritic ore bed ore characteristics, using the whole rock earth chemistry, mineral chemical and other data to quantitatively identify the judging factor of the rock mass in the rock system, applied to the rock system exploration field, with short test time and low cost, convenient and fast, it can effectively distinguish the mineral rock body and lean ore body in the porphyry system, it shortens the mineral exploration period, it is a new indispensable exploration method and method, it has important popularization value and popularization value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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 on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858