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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 is 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 the limitation "the first samples" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the singular first sample in line 3 or if it’s referring to multiple sets of first samples. If it is referring to the singular first sample, it is recommended to amend to recite “the first samples sample ”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the parameter" in lines 11 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the parameter associated with the first samples or associated with a second sample or a new parameter. If it is referring to its respected sample, it is recommended to amend to recite the parameter associated with the first samples or associated with a second sample . 1. Claims 2-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph for being dependent 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. Claims 1-15 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis, the method comprising: testing, using the water chemistry analysis, a parameter associated with a first sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells over a period of time prior to implementing a field operation of a well of the plurality of wells, wherein the first sample comprises water; generating, based on results of testing the parameter associated with the first samples, a baseline of the parameter associated with the first samples for each of the plurality of wells; testing, using the water chemistry analysis, the parameter associated with a second sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells during the field operation of the well, wherein the second sample comprises water; and determining a difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the second sample for at least one of the plurality of wells, wherein the difference exceeds a threshold parameter value for the parameter, and wherein the difference comprises a characterization of water saturation. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of generating, based on results of testing the parameter associated with the first samples, a baseline of the parameter associated with the first samples for each of the plurality of wells . This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, generating a baseline of the parameter can be done by a human with the help of pen and paper . The claim recites the limitation of determining a difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the second sample for at least one of the plurality of wells, wherein the difference exceeds a threshold parameter value for the parameter, and wherein the difference comprises a characterization of water saturation . This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, determining a difference in a parameter can be done by a human with the help of pen and paper . 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use , because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis are performed: using the water chemistry analysis The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis . The claimed additional components are recited as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception . Simply indicating a field of use or technological environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: testing a parameter associated with a first sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells over a period of time prior to implementing a field operation of a well of the plurality of wells, wherein the first sample comprises water; testing, the parameter associated with a second sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells during the field operation of the well, wherein the second sample comprises water As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis . Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising: comparing the results of testing the second sample to expected results generated by a forecasting model; determining that a second difference between the results and the expected results exceeds a threshold forecast value; and generating a revision to the forecasting model based on the second difference. ”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the second difference comprises a fracturing fluid fraction of the at least one of the plurality of wells, wherein the revision to the forecasting model comprises extending an amount of days on production for the at least one of the plurality of wells when the threshold parameter value is greater than a threshold value, wherein the revision to the forecasting model comprises reducing an amount of days on production for the at least one of the plurality of wells when the threshold parameter value is less than the threshold value, and wherein the threshold value is 40%. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein at least one well of the plurality of wells is a geothermal resource, wherein the field operation comprises injecting a fluid into the at least one well to utilize the geothermal resource. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the results of testing the parameter associated with the second samples indicates a volume of the field operation fluid that is found in at least one of a remainder of the plurality of wells. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising: recommending a change to the field operation based on the difference, wherein the change comprises altering at least one of a group consisting of a duration of the field operation, a chemical composition of the field operation fluid, a flow rate, a pressure, and a temperature of a field operation fluid. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: testing, using the water chemistry analysis, the parameter associated with a third sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells during the field operation of the well after the change has been implemented, wherein the third sample comprises water; and determining an additional difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the third sample for at least one of the plurality of wells, wherein the additional difference exceeds the threshold parameter value for the parameter, and wherein the additional difference comprises an additional characterization of water saturation. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein at least one well of the plurality of wells is an injection well, wherein the field operation comprises injecting saltwater into the at least one well. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: implementing a change to a field operation fluid used during the field operation, wherein the field operation fluid comprises fracturing fluid, and wherein the field operation comprises a hydraulic fracturing operation. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein at least one of the plurality of wells is shut in during the period of time prior to implementing the field operation of the well or during the field operation of the well. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: generating the model that provides the expected results using the baseline; and applying the model to another plurality of wells in separate geographic location having a similar subterranean formation relative to the plurality of wells. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein testing the first sample comprises measuring at least one of a group consisting of an ion concentration, an ion ratio, and an amount of a stable isotope. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising: generating, after completing the field operation, a recommendation for a subsequent well added to the plurality of wells, wherein the recommendation for the subsequent well comprises a placement of the subsequent well and a completion design of the subsequent well. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising: generating, based on testing the parameter, a forecasting model for at least one of the plurality of wells. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “ … further comprising: calibrating, using the baseline, a forecasting model for at least one of the plurality of wells. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a system for evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis, the system comprising: a plurality of wells from which initial samples and subsequent samples are obtained; a fluid source that is configured to provide a field operation fluid that is used in a field operation for one of the plurality of wells; and an analytic system comprising: a testing apparatus configured to: test, using the water chemistry analysis, a parameter associated with the initial sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells over a period of time prior to implementing the field operation of the one of the plurality of wells, wherein the initial sample comprises water; and test, using the water chemistry analysis, the parameter associated with the subsequent samples obtained from the plurality of wells during the field operation of the one of the plurality of wells, wherein the subsequent samples comprise water; and a controller communicably coupled to the testing apparatus, wherein the controller is configured to: generate, based on results of testing the parameter associated with the initial samples, a baseline of the parameter associated with initial samples for each of the plurality of wells; and determine a difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the subsequent samples for at least one of the plurality of wells, wherein the difference exceeds a threshold parameter value for the parameter, and wherein the difference comprises a characterization of water saturation. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a system ; therefore, it is a machine 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of generate, based on results of testing the parameter associated with the initial samples, a baseline of the parameter associated with initial samples for each of the plurality of wells . This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, generating a baseline of the parameter can be done by a human with the help of pen and paper . The claim recites the limitation of determining a difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the second sample for at least one of the plurality of wells, wherein the difference exceeds a threshold parameter value for the parameter, and wherein the difference comprises a characterization of water saturation . This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, determining a difference in a parameter can be done by a human with the help of pen and paper . 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: an analytic system , a testing apparatus , a controller communicably coupled to the testing apparatus the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use , because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis are performed: using the water chemistry analysis The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis . The claimed additional components are recited as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception . Simply indicating a field of use or technological environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: a plurality of wells from which initial samples and subsequent samples are obtained; a fluid source that is configured to provide a field operation fluid that is used in a field operation for one of the plurality of wells ; testing a parameter associated with a first sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells over a period of time prior to implementing a field operation of a well of the plurality of wells, wherein the first sample comprises water; testing, the parameter associated with a second sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells during the field operation of the well, wherein the second sample comprises water As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis . Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the testing apparatus of the analytic system comprises: a sensor device configured to measure the parameter associated with the initial samples and the subsequent samples obtained from the plurality of wells. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 depends on claim 16 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the testing apparatus is further configured to test the field operation fluid obtained from at least one of the plurality of wells during the field operation of the one of the plurality of wells. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 19 is 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. Claim 19 depends on claim 16 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the field operation fluid provided by the fluid source is adjusted during the field operation based on a recommendation made by the controller of the analytic system. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental- steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Regarding claim 20, the claim recites a method for evaluating a well using water chemistry analysis, the method comprising: testing, using the water chemistry analysis, a parameter associated with a plurality of first samples obtained from the well over a period of time prior to implementing a field operation, wherein the plurality of first samples comprises water; generating, based on results of testing the parameter associated with the plurality of first samples, a baseline of the parameter associated with the plurality of first samples for the well; testing, using the water chemistry analysis, the parameter associated with a second sample obtained from the well during the field operation, wherein the second sample comprises water; and determining a difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the second sample for the well, wherein the difference exceeds a threshold parameter value for the parameter, and wherein the difference comprises a characterization of water saturation. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of generating, based on results of testing the parameter associated with the first samples, a baseline of the parameter associated with the first samples for each of the plurality of wells . This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, generating a baseline of the parameter can be done by a human with the help of pen and paper . The claim recites the limitation of determining a difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the second sample for at least one of the plurality of wells, wherein the difference exceeds a threshold parameter value for the parameter, and wherein the difference comprises a characterization of water saturation . This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, determining a difference in a parameter can be done by a human or pen and paper . 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use , because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis are performed: using the water chemistry analysis The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis . The claimed additional components are recited as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception . Simply indicating a field of use or technological environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: testing a parameter associated with a first sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells over a period of time prior to implementing a field operation of a well of the plurality of wells, wherein the first sample comprises water; testing, the parameter associated with a second sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells during the field operation of the well, wherein the second sample comprises water As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis . Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 , 2, 4- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by COLLINS, I R et al. (Chinese Publication # CN 109312615 A; translation provided by the examiner; hereinafter Collins) . Regarding claim 1, Collins teaches , A method for evaluating a plurality of wells using water chemistry analysis (abstract) , the method comprising: T esting (par.102) , using the water chemistry analysis, a parameter (par.102 “ the normalized relative signal intensity of one or more of the characteristic homologous oxygenated organic compounds in the above-defined categories of oil-enhancing compounds released by low-salinity core displacement can be used for this correlation ”) associated with a first sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells (par.102 discloses multiple samples obtained ) over a period of time prior (par.77 “ thereby allowing comparisons of samples analyzed at different times using the same instrument ”; different times includes a period of time prior ) to implementing a field operation (par.185 “ during the reservoir's operation period ”) of a well of the plurality of wells (par.108-109) , wherein the first sample comprises water (par.53 discloses samples containing water ) ; generating, based on results of testing the parameter associated with the first samples, a baseline of the parameter associated with the first samples for each of the plurality of wells (par.60-62 teaches establishing baseline compositional characteristics ) ; testing (par.102) , using the water chemistry analysis, the parameter (par.102 “ the normalized relative signal intensity of one or more of the characteristic homologous oxygenated organic compounds in the above-defined categories of oil-enhancing compounds released by low-salinity core displacement can be used for this correlation ”) associated with a second sample obtained from each of the plurality of wells (par.102 discloses multiple samples obtained ) during the field operation of the well (par.185 “ during the reservoir's operation period ”) , wherein the second sample comprises water (par.53) ; and determining a difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the second sample for at least one of the plurality of wells (par.294 “ When a discriminatory difference is found between one or more of the post-water flooding compositional characteristics of oxygenated organic compounds in petroleum and the baseline compositional characteristics of oxygenated organic compounds ”) , wherein the difference exceeds a threshold parameter value for the parameter (par.105 “ the difference between the simulated output (once or more times) and the measured output (once or more times) can be minimized until the difference is less than an acceptable threshold, such as the variance between the simulated output and the measured output being less than 10%, more preferably less than 5%, and even more preferably less than 1%. In other instances, absolute thresholds can also be used, such as defining the absolute value of the tolerance. ” This implies the difference exceeded the threshold before it was minimized ) , and wherein the difference comprises a characterization of water saturation (par.105 teaches high and low water salinity) . Regarding claim 2, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: comparing the results of testing the second sample to expected results (par.105 “ comparing the simulated outputs (once or more) with what was observed/measured during actual water injection ”) generated by a forecasting model (par.105 teaches simulation using models , which forecast situations ) ; determining that a second difference (par.159 teaches differences between results and expected results) between the results and the expected results exceeds a threshold forecast value (par.105 “ the difference between the simulated output (once or more times) and the measured output (once or more times) can be minimized until the difference is less than an acceptable threshold, such as the variance between the simulated output and he measured output being less than 10%, more preferably less than 5%, and even more preferably less than 1%. In other instances, absolute thresholds can also be used, such as defining the absolute value of the tolerance. ” This implies the difference exceeded the threshold before it was minimized) ; and generating a revision to the forecasting model based on the second difference (par.149 “ The method may also optionally include inputting a static three-dimensional (3-D) geological model of the reservoir into a reservoir simulator ”) . Regarding claim 4, Collins teaches the method of Claim 2 , wherein at least one well of the plurality of wells is a geothermal resource (oil reservoir #3) , wherein the field operation comprises injecting a fluid into the at least one well to utilize the geothermal resource (par.53) . Regarding claim 5, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1 , wherein the results of testing the parameter associated with the second samples indicates a volume (par.106) of the field operation fluid that is found in at least one of a remainder of the plurality of wells (par.222-224) . Regarding claim 6, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1 , further comprising: recommending a change to the field operation (par.141 teaches selecting modes; mode selection is interpreted as a recommendation ) based on the difference, wherein the change comprises altering at least one of a group consisting of a duration of the field operation (par.141 “ the operation mode component 306 can, for example, determine when to stop injecting low-salinity water into injection wells and when to start injecting low-salinity water into different injection wells. ”) , a chemical composition of the field operation fluid, a flow rate, a pressure, and a temperature of a field operation fluid. Regarding claim 7, Collins teaches the method of Claim 6 , further comprising: testing, using the water chemistry analysis, the parameter associated with a third sample obtained (par.102 discloses multiple samples obtained) from each of the plurality of wells during the field operation of the well after the change has been implemented, wherein the third sample comprises water (par.53) ; and determining an additional difference in the parameter between the baseline and results of testing the third sample for at least one of the plurality of wells (par.159 teaches determination of multiple differences between baseline and testing results) , wherein the additional difference exceeds the threshold parameter value for the parameter (par.105 “ the difference between the simulated output (once or more times) and the measured output (once or more times) can be minimized until the difference is less than an acceptable threshold, such as the variance between the simulated output and the measured output being less than 10%, more preferably less than 5%, and even more preferably less than 1%. In other instances, absolute thresholds can also be used, such as defining the absolute value of the tolerance. ” This implies the difference exceeded the threshold before it was minimized) , and wherein the additional difference comprises an additional characterization of water saturation (par.65 “ post - water flooding compositional characterization of oxygen-containing organic compounds in the petroleum ”) . Regarding claim 8, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1 , wherein at least one well of the plurality of wells is an injection well (par.53 injection well #10) , wherein the field operation comprises injecting saltwater into the at least one well (par.64 “ injecting low-salinity water from injection well 10 ”) . Regarding claim 9, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1 , further comprising: implementing a change to a field operation fluid used during the field operation (par.141 “ the operation mode component 306 can, for example, determine when to stop injecting low-salinity water into injection wells and when to start injecting low-salinity water into different injection wells. ”) , wherein the field operation fluid comprises fracturing fluid, and wherein the field operation comprises a hydraulic fracturing operation (par.192) . Regarding claim 10, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1 , wherein at least one of the plurality of wells is shut in during the period of time prior to implementing the field operation of the well or during the field operation of the well (par.108-109 teaches this can be achieved through simulation of one or more wells) . Regarding claim 11, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1 , further comprising: generating the model that provides the expected results using the baseline (par.140) ; and applying the model to another plurality of wells in separate geographic location having a similar subterranean formation relative to the plurality of wells (par.108-109) . Regarding claim 12, Collins teaches the method of Claim 1 , wherein testing the first