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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 22, 2025.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a method, comprising: sampling...determining…values” which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites “sampling…determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” which fall within both mental processes and mathematical calculation. The steps may be carried out as a mental process if the algorithm is simple enough, and as a mathematical process if the algorithm is more complicated. Therefore, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mental processes that may be carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations, or by hardware processors, for more complicated situations.
The claimed invention thus recited as an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The recited steps provide nothing more than mere instruction to determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values…See MPEP 2106.05(f) which provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instruction to implement an abstract idea: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The recited step “heating…” is not performed by any particular device. The step is recited as a tool/step that is related to field of use and a tool/step to perform the method.
The recited steps of the method claim do not show in details how to accomplish the determination if the porous media contains clay other than “based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values”. The steps are not performed by any particular machine. They are all mere instructions and are merely data gathering.
The “(determined) whether the porous media contains clay” is data and significant extra solution.
Claim 1 when viewed as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claim limitations as recited when viewed as a whole do not include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
The recited “heating source” and “media of a reservoir formation” are field of use.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claim 2 adds a limitation “wherein the porous media comprises a core sample collected from the reservoir information, soil collected from the reservoir formation, drill cutting samples collected while drilling through the reservoir formation, or some combination thereof” which are data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 3-7 add limitations which are merely data gathering and mathematical calculations merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 9 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The measuring and heating are performed by a downhole well tool which is a field of use device, not a particular device.
Dependent claim 10 adds a limitation which is data gathering and mathematical calculations merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Regarding claim 11:
Step 1: Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a method, comprising: generating…determining…” which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites “sampling…determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” which fall within both mental processes and mathematical calculation. The steps may be carried out as a mental process if the algorithm is simple enough, and as a mathematical process if the algorithm is more complicated. Therefore, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mental processes that may be carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations, or by hardware processors, for more complicated situations.
The claimed invention thus recited as an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The recited steps provide nothing more than mere instruction to determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the conductivity enhancement ratio curve” See MPEP 2106.05(f) which provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instruction to implement an abstract idea: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The recited steps “generating and determining” are not performed by any particular device.
The recited steps of the method claim do not show in detail how to accomplish the determination if the porous media contains clay other than “based at least in part on the conductivity enhancement ratio curve”.
The “(determined) whether the porous media contains clay” is data and significant extra solution.
Claim 11 when viewed as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claim limitations as recited when viewed as a whole do not include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
The recited “heating source” and “media of a reservoir formation” are field of use.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claim 12 adds a limitation which is related to mathematical concept/calculation and is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 add limitations which are extra solution and merely data and merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 15 adds a limitation which is insignificant and merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Claim 16 recites a system which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a downhole well tool, sensors, communication circuitry, and a data processing system. The recited “downhole well tool, sensors, communication circuitry, and a data processing system” are a tool or a field of use devices and are not particular machines. In other words, the system claim and medium claim are no different from the method claim 11 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the device claim recites generic components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 adds a limitation which is related to mathematical concept/calculation and is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 18 and 19 add limitations which are extra solution and merely data and merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 20 adds a limitation which is insignificant and merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio (USPN. 7027928) (hereinafter “DiFoggio”) and Wang et al. (USPN. 12259517).
Regarding claim 1, DiFoggio discloses a method, comprising:
sampling porous media of a reservoir formation (Abstract);
measuring a first resistivity value of the porous media at a first temperature (col. 7-col. 8, line 3: by comparing the measured density of the brin solution brine to the density of pure water at the downhole conditions, the salinity of the brine solution can be determined using formulae 2 and 3. Using correlations known in the art, a salinity is related to resistivity. See formula 4 for resistivity at measured downhole temperature);
heating the porous media to a second temperature using a heating source (col. 7-col. 8, line 3: by comparing the measured density of the brin solution brine to the density of pure water at the downhole conditions, the salinity of the brine solution can be determined using formulae 2 and 3. Using correlations known in the art, a salinity is related to resistivity. See formula 4 for resistivity at measured downhole temperature);
measuring a second resistivity value of the porous media at the second temperature (col. 7-col. 8, line 3: by comparing the measured density of the brin solution brine to the density of pure water at the downhole conditions, the salinity of the brine solution can be determined using formulae 2 and 3. Using correlations known in the art, a salinity is related to resistivity. See formula 4 for resistivity at measured downhole temperature);
DiFoggio does not explicitly disclose determining “determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values”.
Wang teaches “determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” (The borehole SP measurement can be given by a sum of the diffusion and membrane potentials, expressed in formula 1: SP=-70.7×((460+TF)/537)x log (Rmf/Rw), where R.sub.w designates the connate water resistivity, R.sub.mf is the mud-filtrate resistivity, and T.sub.F is the formation temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. Eq. (1) can be used to estimate R.sub.w by the inversion modeling. It is noted that the inversion modeling based on Eq. (1) gives the spontaneous potential between a thick clean sand and a thick shale with a large cation exchange capacity Q.sub.v (Q.sub.v.fwdarw). The presence of clays in a sand will change its spontaneous potential, and hence change in the measured SP log data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify DiFoggio's invention using Wang's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 1 to
Regarding claim 2, DiFoggio and Wang disclose everything as applied above. In addition, DiFoggio discloses wherein the porous media comprises a core sample collected from the reservoir formation, soil collected from the reservoir formation, drill cutting samples collected while drilling through the reservoir formation, or some combination thereof (DiFoggio: Drilling system in Figs. 1 and 2; cols. 2-3).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio (USPN. 7027928) (hereinafter “DiFoggio”) and Abdallah et al. (USPAP. 20210123877).20210123877).
Regarding claim 1, DiFoggio discloses a method, comprising:
sampling porous media of a reservoir formation (Abstract);
measuring a first resistivity value of the porous media at a first temperature (col. 7-col. 8, line 3: by comparing the measured density of the brin solution brine to the density of pure water at the downhole conditions, the salinity of the brine solution can be determined using formulae 2 and 3. Using correlations known in the art, a salinity is related to resistivity. See formula 4 for resistivity at measured downhole temperature);
heating the porous media to a second temperature using a heating source (col. 7-col. 8, line 3: by comparing the measured density of the brin solution brine to the density of pure water at the downhole conditions, the salinity of the brine solution can be determined using formulae 2 and 3. Using correlations known in the art, a salinity is related to resistivity. See formula 4 for resistivity at measured downhole temperature);
measuring a second resistivity value of the porous media at the second temperature (col. 7-col. 8, line 3: by comparing the measured density of the brin solution brine to the density of pure water at the downhole conditions, the salinity of the brine solution can be determined using formulae 2 and 3. Using correlations known in the art, a salinity is related to resistivity. See formula 4 for resistivity at measured downhole temperature);
DiFoggio does not explicitly disclose determining “determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values”.
Abdallah teaches “determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” (Abdallah teaches at the Abstract clay detection, clay typing, and clay volume quantification using electromagnetic measurements on a porous media sample at a low frequency less than 5000 Hz. The electromagnetic measurements are used to determine and store permittivity data that characterizes permittivity of the porous media sample at the low frequency less than 5000 Hz. The low frequency electromagnetic measurements can be performed in a laboratory, at a wellsite or other surface location. The low frequency electromagnetic measurements are nondestructive, and the results indicate that the methods and systems are highly sensitive to the existence of clays. Pars. 38-41: clay content determination. For a porous media containing clay minerals, the relative permittivity ε.sub.r and the effective permittivity ε.sub.eff depend on clay type and volume of each clay type. In addition, the relative permittivity ε.sub.r and the effective permittivity ε.sub.eff can be calculated based on effective media theory. In embodiments, the EM response signal of the porous media can be detected by one or more receiver antennae (e.g., receiver coil(s)). Phased-lock detection and amplification of the EM response signal can determine the amplitude and phase of the voltage levels detected by the one or more receiver antennae. By recording and processing the amplitude and phase of such voltage levels, a measurement of the complex conductivity σ of the porous media can be obtained. The relative permittivity ε.sub.r and/or the effective permittivity ε.sub.eff of the porous media can be extracted from the quadrature component of the complex conductivity σ according to eqns. (1a) and (1b) as set forth above.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify DiFoggio's invention using Abdallah's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 1 to provide clay detection, clay typing, and clay volume quantification using electromagnetic measurements on a porous media sample and provide the results that indicate that the methods and systems are highly sensitive to the existence of clays. (Abdallah: Par. 14).
Regarding claim 2, DiFoggio and Abdallah disclose everything as applied above. In addition, DiFoggio discloses wherein the porous media comprises a core sample collected from the reservoir formation, soil collected from the reservoir formation, drill cutting samples collected while drilling through the reservoir formation, or some combination thereof (DiFoggio: Drilling system in Figs. 1 and 2; cols. 2-3).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio and Wang in view of Hanna (US-20130096833).
Regarding claim 3, DiFoggio and Wang disclose everything as applied above, but not “calculating a conductivity enhancement ratio based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values; and determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the conductivity enhancement ratio”.
Hanna teaches calculating a conductivity enhancement ratio based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values; and determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the conductivity enhancement ratio” (Pars. 27, 29, 33, and 34: determination of formation water resistivity or conductivity values at the points along the length of the borehole. Hanna discloses that conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity and measures an ability of the material to conduct an electric current. Either the formation water resistivity of the subsurface sample, the formation water conductivity of the subsurface sample, or both may be determined. Hanna discloses determining formation water resistivity is also capable of determining formation water conductivity. FIG. 5 is a graph 134 illustrating water resistivity and conductivity values for several different subsurface samples. The x-axis 132 of the graph 134 represents the salinity index, the left y-axis 135 represents the water conductivity, and the right y-axis 130 represents the water resistivity. The water conductivity values of samples of a clay-free rock are shown plotted in FIG. 5 as points 136. The water conductivity values of samples of a clay-containing rock are plotted as points 13. As shown in FIG. 5, the points 136 and 137 generally overlap with one another. Thus, the correlation between the water conductivity and salinity index may be similar for subsurface samples with varying concentrations of clay. Similarly, the water resistivity values of samples of the clay-containing rock are shown as points 138 and the water resistivity values of samples of the clay- free rock are shown as points 139 in FIG. 5. As illustrated, the points 138 and 139 generally overlap with one another. Thus, the correlation between the water resistivity and salinity index may be similar for subsurface samples with varying concentrations of clay. In other words, the techniques disclosed herein may be appropriate for use with a wide variety of subsurface samples containing varying concentrations of clay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify DiFoggio and Wang's invention using Hanna 's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim to provide the operators accurate information so that operators are able to make quicker decisions (Hanna: Par. 35-37).
Regarding claim 5, DiFoggio, Wang, and Hanna disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Hanna teaches wherein determining whether the porous contains clay comprises comparing the conductivity enhancement ratio to a clean-sand enhancement conductivity factor (Hanna: Fig. 5, Pars. 27, 31-34 showing appropriate for use with a wide variety of subsurface samples containing varying concentrations of clay. Table values or equation derived from Fig. 5 to compare to determine the clay content. See Points 136, 138, 139).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio and Abdallah in view of Hanna (US-20130096833).
Regarding claim 3, DiFoggio and Abdallah disclose everything as applied above, but not “calculating a conductivity enhancement ratio based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values; and determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the conductivity enhancement ratio”.
Hanna teaches calculating a conductivity enhancement ratio based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values; and determining whether the porous media contains clay based at least in part on the conductivity enhancement ratio” (Pars. 27, 29, 33, and 34: determination of formation water resistivity or conductivity values at the points along the length of the borehole. Hanna discloses that conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity and measures an ability of the material to conduct an electric current. Either the formation water resistivity of the subsurface sample, the formation water conductivity of the subsurface sample, or both may be determined. Hanna discloses determining formation water resistivity is also capable of determining formation water conductivity. FIG. 5 is a graph 134 illustrating water resistivity and conductivity values for several different subsurface samples. The x-axis 132 of the graph 134 represents the salinity index, the left y-axis 135 represents the water conductivity, and the right y-axis 130 represents the water resistivity. The water conductivity values of samples of a clay-free rock are shown plotted in FIG. 5 as points 136. The water conductivity values of samples of a clay-containing rock are plotted as points 13. As shown in FIG. 5, the points 136 and 137 generally overlap with one another. Thus, the correlation between the water conductivity and salinity index may be similar for subsurface samples with varying concentrations of clay. Similarly, the water resistivity values of samples of the clay-containing rock are shown as points 138 and the water resistivity values of samples of the clay- free rock are shown as points 139 in FIG. 5. As illustrated, the points 138 and 139 generally overlap with one another. Thus, the correlation between the water resistivity and salinity index may be similar for subsurface samples with varying concentrations of clay. In other words, the techniques disclosed herein may be appropriate for use with a wide variety of subsurface samples containing varying concentrations of clay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify DiFoggio and Abdallah's invention using Hanna 's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim to provide the operators accurate information so that operators are able to make quicker decisions (Hanna: Par. 35-37).
Regarding claim 5, DiFoggio, Abdallah, and Hanna disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Hanna teaches wherein determining whether the porous contains clay comprises comparing the conductivity enhancement ratio to a clean-sand enhancement conductivity factor (Hanna: Fig. 5, Pars. 27, 31-34 showing appropriate for use with a wide variety of subsurface samples containing varying concentrations of clay. Table values or equation derived from Fig. 5 to compare to determine the clay content. See Points 136, 138, 139).
Claims 6, 7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio and Wang in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang’) (WO 2022231583).
Regarding claims 6 (dependent from claim 1) and similar claims 13 and 18, DiFoggio and Wang disclose everything as applied above. However, DiFoggio and Wang do not explicitly disclose “determining a clay type in the porous media based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values”.
Zhang teaches “determining a clay type in the porous media based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” (Pars. 35, 41, 46-48: Among all of the parameters related to the in-phase component o.sup.R and the quadrature component s.sup.1 of the total conductivity s, the water saturation Sw and CEC are the key petrophysical parameters which can be used to calculate the oil reserve and to identify clay types in the reservoir rocks. Zhang discloses resistivity is used in a calculation to solve for CEC which is used to identify clay types. In light of Applicant’s Specification at PGPUB, Par. 3 that “it has been found that the cation-exchange capacity (CEC) values directly correlate with the clay type and content. It is the Examiner’s position that Zhang meets the claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify DiFoggio and Wang’s invention using Zhang's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 6 to improve geo-steering in well drilling and enhance formation evaluation (Zhang: Par. 48).
Regarding claim 7 and similar claims 14 and 19, DiFoggio, Wang and Zhang disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Zhang teaches “determining a volume of clay in the porous media based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values (Zhang: Pars. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, DiFoggio, Wang and Zhang disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Zhang teaches disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Vinegar discloses “the measuring and heating steps of the method are performed downhole well tool disposed in a wellbore extending through the reservoir formation” (Page 3).
Regarding claim 10 and similar claims 15 and 20, DiFoggio, Wang and Zhang disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Zhang teaches “utilizing machine learning algorithms to determine whether the porous media contains based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” (Pars. 35, 41, 46-48, Abstract: A method for characterizing a subterranean formation is provided that involves obtaining resistivity log data measured by a logging-while-drilling electromagnetic tool operated while drilling a wellbore that traverses the subterranean formation, and calculating at least one of a first data value representing water saturation of the subterranean formation and a second data value representing cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the subterranean formation from the resistivity log data. In embodiments, the method can further involve storing at least one of the first data value and the second data value in computer memory, and/or outputting at least one of the first data value and the second data value as part of a log for well placement, formation evaluation, geological modeling, or reservoir management. The first data value and/or the second data value can also be used for geo-steering the drilling of the wellbore).
Regarding claim 11, claims 1, 3, and 6’s rejection is incorporated by reference.
Claims 12 and 17 are similar to claim 5. Claim 5’s rejection is herein incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 16, (claims 1, 3, and 6’s rejection is incorporated by reference).
Claims 6, 7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio and Abdallah in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang’) (WO 2022231583).
Regarding claims 6 (dependent from claim 1) and similar claims 13 and 18, DiFoggio and Abdallah disclose everything as applied above. However, DiFoggio and Abdallah do not explicitly disclose “determining a clay type in the porous media based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values”.
Zhang teaches “determining a clay type in the porous media based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” (Pars. 35, 41, 46-48: Among all of the parameters related to the in-phase component o.sup.R and the quadrature component s.sup.1 of the total conductivity s, the water saturation Sw and CEC are the key petrophysical parameters which can be used to calculate the oil reserve and to identify clay types in the reservoir rocks. Zhang discloses resistivity is used in a calculation to solve for CEC which is used to identify clay types. In light of Applicant’s Specification at PGPUB, Par. 3 that “it has been found that the cation-exchange capacity (CEC) values directly correlate with the clay type and content. It is the Examiner’s position that Zhang meets the claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify DiFoggio and Wang’s invention using Zhang's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 6 to improve geo-steering in well drilling and enhance formation evaluation (Zhang: Par. 48).
Regarding claim 7 and similar claims 14 and 19, DiFoggio, Abdallah and Zhang disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Zhang teaches “determining a volume of clay in the porous media based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values (Zhang: Pars. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, DiFoggio, Abdallah and Zhang disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Zhang teaches disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Vinegar discloses “the measuring and heating steps of the method are performed downhole well tool disposed in a wellbore extending through the reservoir formation” (Page 3).
Regarding claim 10 and similar claims 15 and 20, DiFoggio, Abdallah and Zhang disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Zhang teaches “utilizing machine learning algorithms to determine whether the porous media contains based at least in part on the first and second resistivity values” (Pars. 35, 41, 46-48, Abstract: A method for characterizing a subterranean formation is provided that involves obtaining resistivity log data measured by a logging-while-drilling electromagnetic tool operated while drilling a wellbore that traverses the subterranean formation, and calculating at least one of a first data value representing water saturation of the subterranean formation and a second data value representing cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the subterranean formation from the resistivity log data. In embodiments, the method can further involve storing at least one of the first data value and the second data value in computer memory, and/or outputting at least one of the first data value and the second data value as part of a log for well placement, formation evaluation, geological modeling, or reservoir management. The first data value and/or the second data value can also be used for geo-steering the drilling of the wellbore).
Regarding claim 11, claims 1, 3, and 6’s rejection is incorporated by reference.
Claims 12 and 17 are similar to claim 5. Claim 5’s rejection is herein incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 16, (claims 1, 3, and 6’s rejection is incorporated by reference).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 120735443 teaches a certain size and content ratio of graphene nano-sheet, carbon nano-tube, the silicon carbide nano-wire and the boron nitride nano-sheet are used for preparing the heat-conducting transition layer, the graphene nano-sheet with suitable content can obviously enhance the in-plane heat conduction, in addition, the carbon nano-tube with a certain content can improve the thermal conductivity in the vertical direction, at the same time, the silicon carbide nano-wire and the boron nitride nano-sheet with suitable content are added, it can realize the enhancement of mechanical property and insulating property (Abstract; Pages 4 and 5). However, CN 120735443 is not qualified as a prior art due to its publication date which is after the filing date of the instant Application.
Claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “converting the first and second resistivity values to first and second conductivity values; and dividing the second conductivity value by the first conductivity value to determine the conductivity enhancement ratio” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights