CTNF 18/528,048 CTNF 95435 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/04/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 302 in Figure 3 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of 1. A method of formation characterization, the method comprising: obtaining spectral induced polarization (SIP) measurements of a volume of a formation at a plurality of frequencies to determine a frequency-dependent complex (FDC) impedance value of a matrix material in the volume of the formation; determining whether the volume is a low resistivity pay (LRP) zone with a formation resistivity index < 2, by analyzing the FDC impedance value of the matrix material; and identifying the volume of the formation as the LRP zone when the FDC impedance value exhibits a dispersion at increasing frequencies, wherein the FDC impedance value is substantially constant before the dispersion and increases by at least one order of magnitude over one order of magnitude of the increasing frequencies in the dispersion . Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category. Under Step 2A, Prong One , we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps . Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two , we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state. Finally, under Step 2B , we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a step of obtaining spectral induced polarization (SIP) measurements is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. obtaining data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claims 9-18 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-8 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitation of Claim 2 of “an SIP column including a plurality of potential electrodes arranged along a longitudinal direction of the SIP column; and two current electrodes positioned on opposing ends of the SIP column” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 2. The additional limitation of Claim 4 of “placing potential electrodes and current electrodes adjacent to the volume of the formation; injecting an alternating electrical current into the formation through the current electrodes at a first frequency; and measuring a first set of data via the potential electrodes at a broad frequency range” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 5-8 are dependent on Claim 4 Examiner’s Note Claims 1-18 are not rejected under a prior art rejection (35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103). In regards to Claim 1, Slater (US20140218037) teaches the limitations “obtaining spectral induced polarization (SIP) measurements of a volume of a formation at a plurality of frequencies to determine a frequency-dependent complex (FDC) impedance value of a matrix material in the volume of the formation (“The system 10 uses spectral induced polarization (SIP) methodology to measure the low frequency electrical properties of subsurface earth media. The intelligent SIP measurement module, or simply module, 41 interfaces with a plurality of electrodes of either polarizing or non-polarizing types. Specifically, the intelligent SIP measurement module interfaces with a plurality electrodes 66 , 67 for emitting signals, a plurality of non-polarizing electrodes for detecting signals 42 , 43 , 64 , 65 and a plurality of electrodes for guarding/focusing signals 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 . More specifically, the module 41 includes a plurality of interfaces, including: a plurality of interfaces to the electrodes for inducing an electrical current into the area surrounding the sonde 66 , 67 , a plurality of interfaces to the electrodes for detecting the current 42 and potential 43 , 64 , 65 for detecting potential and a plurality of interfaces to the electrodes for focusing the electrical fields 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 . In the present instance, the induced current is a time-variable signal containing a mixture of one or several frequencies and the impedance or vector-quantity resistivity is measured by analyzing the response of the formation to each of the excitation current frequencies.” – [0017]) .” Cerepi (US20190086350) teaches the limitations “obtaining spectral induced polarization (SIP) measurements of a volume of a formation at a plurality of frequencies to determine a frequency-dependent complex (FDC) impedance value of a matrix material in the volume of the formation (“Spectral Induced Polarization (denoted SIP hereinafter) measures a complex resistivity spectrum (that can be represented by a real part R and an imaginary part X, or else by an amplitude and a phase) in a given range of frequencies. This technique was in particular used in mine prospecting by Conrad Schlumberger who observed in 1912 a polarization effect on iron ore deposits. Next, its application was extended to water table, freshwater/saltwater interface and clay lens research. It was only around the 1980s that research focused on the sensitivity of the polarization to contaminants” – [0024]; “Spectral induced polarization measurements with a frequency sweep, at 100% brine saturation and under the experimental flow rate, with 4 electrodes, at 1 volt, over the range extending from 1 mHz to 30 MHz. The objective of this operation is to obtain a phase angle (phase shift between the “R” values and the “X” values), a relaxation time and also a critical frequency for each section analyzed” – [0169]); determining whether the volume is a low resistivity pay (LRP) zone with a formation resistivity index, by analyzing the FDC impedance value of the matrix material (“Furthermore, the SIP measurements performed according to the embodiment described above make it possible to measure the complex resistivity, in a saturated medium and in an unsaturated medium. From these measurements, it is possible to deduce for example the following parameters: a phase angle Θ, from a formula of the type: tan Θ=X/R, where R is the real part of the resistivity and X is the imaginary part; a relaxation time τ, a critical frequency Fc; a resistivity index IR=Rt/Ro, where Rt and R0 are respectively the real part of the resistivity in an unsaturated medium and in a saturated medium” – [0127]; “Spectral induced polarization measurements with a frequency sweep, at 100% brine saturation and under the experimental flow rate, with 4 electrodes (2 injection electrodes and 2 measuring electrodes), at 1 volt, over the range extending from 1 mHz to 30 MHz. This measurement enables the measurement of the resistivity index (IR) when the measurement is repeated at various degrees of saturation” – [0169]) ” Shilin et. al (Peng Shilin et. al., “Complex Resistivity measurement in frequency/time domain and estimation of formation water resistivity”, SPWLA 38 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 15-18, 1997) teaches the limitations “obtaining spectral induced polarization (SIP) measurements of a volume of a formation at a plurality of frequencies to determine a frequency-dependent complex (FDC) impedance value of a matrix material in the volume of the formation (“A set of equipment “Rock Complex Resistivity Measurement and Analysis System (CRMAS)” has been developed, which measures the resistance and impedance of rock samples at simulated reservoir temperature and pressure….Rock complex resistivity measurement is also made in time domain, that is to measure decay characteristics of rock polarization potential and polarizability. The and relationships between rock cation exchange capacity (Q,) and the salinity of formation water are established. Based on laboratory work, we have developed the induced-polarization well logging tool which shows a good geological results in the determination of reservoir formation CEC, formation water salinity and the waterflooded performance of the pay zones. The paper presents methods and instruments of rock complex resistivity measurement in frequency /time domain. A mathematical equation is drawn to represent relations of rock complex resistivity with formation water resistivity, shale content or cation exchange capacity. The field examples are given to verify its geological results” – Abstract; “The study of rock complex resistivity would be inquiring into rock’s impedance and it's relation with frequency” - Introduction) ” Gao (US20230008054) teaches the limitations “determining whether the volume is a low resistivity pay (LRP) zone with a formation resistivity index, by analyzing the matrix material (identifying low resistivity pay zones and characterizing the saturation of low resistivity pay zones through NMR measurements – [0026]; NMR measurements utilized to determine the resistivity index – [0035]) ” Ashfaq (US20210149068) teaches a method for identifying low resistivity pay zones by analyzing elastic attributes including acoustic impedance and compressional velocity-shear velocity ratio at different depths in the formation. Zhang (US20220128726) teaches utilizing resistivity log data to estimate water saturation of formation rock and other useful formation parameters. Zhang details in [0006] that interpreting and characterizing low resistivity pay to estimate the true hydrocarbon reserve and the causes of the low resistivity pay zone. Rasmus (US20190129056) teaches a formation characterization system that acquires induction measurements in a borehole in a formation , determining dielectric properties of the formation using the measurements and generating a log that characterizes particles in the formation based on the dielectric properties. Rasmus details in [0084] that the technique may aim to identify low resistivity pay zones. Slater, Cerepi, Shilin, Gao, Ashfaq, Zhang, and Rasmas are silent with regards to the language of "determining whether the volume is a low resistivity pay (LRP) zone with a formation resistivity index <= 2, by analyzing the FDC impedance value of the matrix material; and identifying the volume of the formation as the LRP zone when the FDC impedance value exhibits a dispersion at increasing frequencies, wherein the FDC impedance value is substantially constant before the dispersion and increases by at least one order of magnitude over one order of magnitude of the increasing frequencies in the dispersion.” Claims 2-18 are dependent on Claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/528,048 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights