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 .
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 1-19 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claimed “calculating an oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero; using the oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero, running three models to produce a first set of data, a second set of data, and a third set of data, wherein the first set of data is related to a first model, the second set of data is related to a second model, and the third set of data is related to a third model; calculating a final oil-in-water fraction using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data; and calculating a final water salinity using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data” is unclear in view of applicant’s filed disclosure. The claimed calculation of an oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero does not appear to supported. There is no description that defines the calculative process. How does applicant calculate the fraction for a water salinity value of zero? How are the final oil-in-water fraction and a final water salinity using the first, second and third data from the claimed models?
Further, the claim defines running three models to produce first, second and third data. However, there is no disclosure of these models. What are they? What is the fundamental mathematical operations defining these models? Are they physics, statistical, machine learning or multiple machine learning models? If they are machine learning models, what are the specifics of those models?
These portions of the claim do not appear to adequately supported by the disclosure, thereby indicating applicant did not have support for these claimed limitations at the time of filing. Therefore, the examiner was unable to apply art to these limitations, as the scope of the claims are unclear. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 2 defines calculating the final oil-in-water fraction using a salinity value. How is “a salinity value” used in this calculation? The examiner was unable to find a definition in applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the examiner was unable to apply art and clarification is required.
Claim 3 defines calculating the final oil-in-water fraction using a salinity value. How is “oil-in-water fraction” used in this calculation? The examiner was unable to find a definition in applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the examiner was unable to apply art and clarification is required.
Claims 8 and 14 recite “the first model is related to values for a graph of oil-in-water data in relation to conductivity measurements”. How does this further define the model and related graphs used in the calculation of the final water salinity? There is no support defining how the graphs are used within the model or in what extend. The specification merely repeats the claim limitation. Clarification is required.
Claims 9 and 15 recite “the second model is related to a graph of normalized conductivity versus water phase salinity.” How does this further define the model and related graphs used in the calculation of the final water salinity? There is no support defining how the graphs are used within the model or in what extend. The specification merely repeats the claim limitation. Clarification is required.
Claims 10 and 16 recite “the third model is related to a graph of interpolation and extrapolation results of electrical conductivity plotted by oil fraction.” How does this further define the model and related graphs used in the calculation of the final water salinity? There is no support defining how the graphs are used within the model or in what extend. The specification merely repeats the claim limitation. Clarification is required.
Claim 12 reads as “The article of manufacture wherein the article is configured as one of a solid- state device, a universal serial bus device, a compact disk, and a computer memory arrangement”. However, the claim does not depend from any independent claim nor is there a claim directed towards “An article of manufacture”. The only claim that appears to be relevant is claim 11. Therefore, to further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as depending from claim 11. Additionally, if applicant confirms the claim was to depend directly from claim 11, the examiner suggests making the language of claim 12 consistent with the terminology of claim 11, i.e. --The object--. Clarification is required.
Claims 14-19 appear to depend from the incorrect independent claim. Therefore, the scope of these claims is confusing. To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claims as depending from Claim 13, which is directed towards “A method”. Clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of calculating the final oil-in-water and the final water salinity using the first, second and third data from undefined models or the models themselves. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites calculating an oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero; using the oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero; running three models to produce a first set of data, a second set of data, and a third set of data, wherein the first set of data is related to a first model, the second set of data is related to a second model, and the third set of data is related to a third model; calculating a final oil-in-water fraction using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data; and calculating a final water salinity using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data which recite an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The claimed calculation of an oil-in-water fraction, as best understood in light of applicant’s filed specification lack of description (discussed above in the above 112(a) and (b) rejections), involves basic arithmetic of percentages and ratios. The claimed running of three models and their respective data primarily involves modeling and/or learning, a technique that aggregates multiple algorithms to improve prediction accuracy. This process relies on statistics, linear algebra, and machine learning algorithms to train models, evaluate their fit, and combine their outputs. Lastly, calculating the final water salinity using the first, second, and third data, as best understood would involve basic arithmetic’s. Therefore, despite applicant’s lack of disclosure, the identified limitations are directed towards an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sample merely links the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea is improves the sample. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claimed “obtaining at least one electrical conductivity measurement for a sample” and “obtaining at least one temperature measurement for the sample” merely read as data gathering steps required to perform the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the gathering steps or the gathered data, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are improved or bettered by the abstract idea. The sample merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result has no impact on the sample. The claimed obtaining data from the sample is merely a data gathering step, failing to provide significantly more.
Claim 2 further defines the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the usage of a salinity value just further defines the mathematical approach to calculating the final oil-in-water fraction.
Claim 3 further defines the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the usage of an oil-in-water fraction just further defines the mathematical approach to calculating the final salinity.
Claims 4, 5 and 18 further define the additional element related to data gathering by reciting the environment in which the data is obtained, i.e. downhole environment. The further defined additional elements merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result has no impact on the downhole environment. Therefore, the claims fail to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 6 recites the additional element step of storing the result of the abstract idea in a non-volatile memory. The act of storing reads as an insignificant extra solution activity, as storing the data in a memory is a mere nominal and tangential step to the invention. The act of storing the result of the abstract idea into a memory does not improve the sample or the memory, therefore the additional elements of claim 6 fail to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of display the result of the abstract idea on a monitor. The limitation reads as an insignificant extra solution activity, as displaying the result of the abstract idea on a monitor is a mere nominal and tangential step to the invention. The act of displaying the result of the abstract idea on a display does not improve the sample or the display, therefore the additional elements fail to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 8 and 14 further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as the limitation refers to a mathematical relationship, linear or non-linear regression, that links electrical conductivity measurements to the concentration of oil in water. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 15 further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as the limitation is a mathematical concept because it represents a functional, often linear or power-law, dependency between two physical quantities that is normalized to remove the influence of temperature. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 16 further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as the describes a mathematical modeling technique used to predict the physical properties of a mixture when experimental data is limited. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites calculating an oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero; using the oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero; running three models to produce a first set of data, a second set of data, and a third set of data, wherein the first set of data is related to a first model, the second set of data is related to a second model, and the third set of data is related to a third model; calculating a final oil-in-water fraction using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data; and calculating a final water salinity using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data which recite an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The claimed calculation of an oil-in-water fraction, as best understood in light of applicant’s filed specification lack of description, involves basic arithmetic of percentages and ratios. The claimed running of three models and their respective data primarily involves modeling and/or learning, a technique that aggregates multiple algorithms to improve prediction accuracy. This process relies on statistics, linear algebra, and machine learning algorithms to train models, evaluate their fit, and combine their outputs. Lastly, calculating the final water salinity using the first, second, and third data, as best understood by the examiner, would involve basic arithmetic’s.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a non-volatile memory configured to store a list of instructions being read by a computer read as generic computer elements employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. These generically claimed computer elements are neither improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element sample merely links the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea is improves the sample itself thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claimed “obtaining at least one electrical conductivity measurement for a sample” and “obtaining at least one temperature measurement for the sample” merely read as data gathering steps required to perform the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the gathering steps or the gathered data, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are improved or bettered by the abstract idea. The generically claimed computer components simply act as tools for performing the abstract idea while the sample merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result has no impact on these computer elements of sample. The claimed obtaining data from the sample is merely a data gathering step, failing to provide significantly more.
Claim 12 further defines the “article” as one of a solid-state device, a universal serial bus device, a compact disk, and a computer memory arrangement. These additional elements are merely tasked as tools for performing the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 13 recites calculating an oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero; using the oil-in-water fraction for a water salinity value of zero; running three models to produce a first set of data, a second set of data, and a third set of data, wherein the first set of data is related to a first model, the second set of data is related to a second model, and the third set of data is related to a third model; calculating a final oil-in-water fraction using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data and a water salinity value; and calculating a final water salinity using the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data, and a oil0in0water fraction which recite an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The claimed calculation of an oil-in-water fraction, as best understood in light of applicant’s filed specification lack of description, involves basic arithmetic of percentages and ratios. The claimed running of three models and their respective data sets primarily involves ensemble modeling or learning, a technique that aggregates multiple algorithms to improve prediction accuracy. This process relies on statistics, linear algebra, and machine learning algorithms to train models, evaluate their fit, and combine their outputs. Lastly, calculating the final water salinity using the first, second, and third data, as best understood by the examiner, would involve basic arithmetic’s.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sample merely links the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea is improves the sample. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claimed “obtaining at least one electrical conductivity measurement for a sample” and “obtaining at least one temperature measurement for the sample” merely read as data gathering steps required to perform the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the gathering steps or the gathered data, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are improved or bettered by the abstract idea. The sample merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result has no impact on the sample. The claimed obtaining data from the sample is merely a data gathering step, failing to provide significantly more.
Claim 17 further defines an additional element step of either displaying or storing the result of the abstract idea. The limitation reads as a mere instruction to apply the exception, as there is no indication how displaying or storing a result from a calculation improves a technology. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 20 is further defines the additional element related to where the method is occurring, i.e. field location. The further defined additional element merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result has no impact to the field location. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2105.06(h)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Huwaider et al. (2022/0282618).
With respect to claim 1, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches a method, comprising: obtaining at least one electrical conductivity measurement for a sample (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using two electrodes 102 to measure conductivity; [0028]); obtaining at least one temperature measurement for the sample (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using a temperature probe 202).
As best understood, in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections, the invention describes an algorithmic process rooted in mathematical operations based on obtained conductivity and temperature data for determining salinity and oil-in-water characteristics of a downhole environment. Based on the examiner’s best understanding of the instant claims, Al-Huwaider teaches in Fig. 8 obtaining data used in an algorithmic process for calculating the salinity and oil hold-ups, which heavily relies on oil-in-water fractions, as known in the industry; see para. [0006] which discloses oil hold up calculation. Further, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using machine learning algorithms, i.e. models, that aid in the calculation of these conditions using obtained and historical data; [0027]. Therefore, as best understood by the examiner, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method wherein the calculating the final oil-in-water fraction also uses a salinity value (as taught to be measured by probe 100; [0028]).
With respect to claim 3, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method wherein the calculating the final salinity also uses an oil-in-water fraction (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches determining oil-hold up, which is a mathematical operation that heavily relies upon oil-in-water fractions; thereby reading on the claimed invention, as best understood by the examiner).
With respect to claim 4, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method wherein the at least one electrical conductivity measurement is performed in a downhole environment (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches sending the probe downhole, Fig. 2, to gather the needed data to perform the method of Fig. 8).
With respect to claims 5 and 18, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method wherein the at least one temperature measurement is performed in a downhole environment (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches sending the probe downhole, Fig. 2, to gather the needed data to perform the method of Fig. 8).
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method further comprising storing the at least one of the final salinity and the final oil-in-water values in a non-volatile memory (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches a database that stores the data [0048]; these databases would store data even when power is off; thereby reading on the claimed invention, as best understood by the examiner in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method further comprising displaying the at least one of the final salinity and the final oil-in-water values on a monitor (Al-Huwaider et al. teaches displaying the results of the algorithmic process on a display, thereby reading on the claim, as best understood by the examiner in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections).
With respect to claims 8 and 14, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method, as best understood by the examiner in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections teaches machine learning models capable of relating to values for a graph of oil-in-water data in relation to conductivity measurements.
With respect to claims 9 and 15, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method, as best understood by the examiner in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections teaches machine learning models capable of relating to a graph of normalized conductivity versus water phase salinity.
With respect to claims 10 and 16, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method, as best understood by the examiner in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections teaches machine learning models capable of relating to a graph of interpolation and extrapolation results of electrical conductivity plotted by oil fraction.
With respect to claim 11, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches an object of manufacture configured with a non-volatile memory (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches a memory that store data even when power is off; [0048]), the non-volatile memory [0048] configured to store a list of instructions [0011], the list of instructions [0011] configured to be read by a computer [0011], the list of instructions comprising, at least in part, a method, comprising: obtaining at least one electrical conductivity measurement for a sample (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using two electrodes 102 to measure conductivity; [0028]); obtaining at least one temperature measurement for the sample (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using a temperature probe 202).
As best understood, in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections, the invention describes an algorithmic process rooted in mathematical operations based on obtained conductivity and temperature data for determining salinity and oil-in-water characteristics of a downhole environment. Based on the examiner’s best understanding of the instant claims, Al-Huwaider teaches in Fig. 8 obtaining data used in an algorithmic process for calculating the salinity and oil hold-ups, which heavily relies on oil-in-water fractions, as known in the industry; see para. [0006] which discloses oil hold up calculation. Further, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using machine learning algorithms, i.e. models, that aid in the calculation of these conditions using obtained and historical data; [0027]. Therefore, as best understood by the examiner, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 12, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the object of manufacture wherein the article is configured as a universal serial bus device [0045], a compact disk [0059], and a computer memory arrangement [0060].
With respect to claim 13, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches a method, comprising: obtaining at least one electrical conductivity measurement for a sample (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using two electrodes 102 to measure conductivity; [0028]) and obtaining at least one temperature measurement for the sample (as Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using a temperature probe 202).
As best understood, in light of the above 112(a) and (b) rejections, the invention describes an algorithmic process rooted in mathematical operations based on obtained conductivity and temperature data for determining salinity and oil-in-water characteristics of a downhole environment. Based on the examiner’s best understanding of the instant claims, Al-Huwaider teaches in Fig. 8 obtaining data used in an algorithmic process for calculating the salinity and oil hold-ups, which heavily relies on oil-in-water fractions, as known in the industry; see para. [0006] which discloses oil hold up calculation. Further, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches using machine learning algorithms, i.e. models, that aid in the calculation of these conditions using obtained and historical data; [0027]. Therefore, as best understood by the examiner, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 19, Al-Huwaider et al. teaches the method, wherein the method is accomplished at a field location (as the data is collected at a field location where the downhole resides; Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pfutzner et al. (10,247,849) teaches taking measurements downhole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853