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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 remain pending and examined in the application. Claims 16-17 are newly added, and are pending and examined. Claims 7 and 14 are canceled.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome all of the specification objections, claim objections, 112(b) rejections, 102 rejections, and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 5, 2026. However, a new specification objection has been raised based on the claim amendments, new 112(b) rejections have been raised, and the 101 rejections remain outstanding, as detailed below in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 101 section of this instant Office Action.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous 101 rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Based on the amendments to the Specification filed 8/4/2026, there are now two paragraphs with the heading [0060], the first beginning with “Embodiment 1.”, and the second beginning with “Embodiment 2.”. There is no paragraph with the heading [0059]. In order to correct this informality, the Examiner suggests amending the first paragraph beginning with “Embodiment 1.” to have the heading [0059].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, the claim includes the mathematical formula, “DAHIndex = ([DAH]2)/(Σ[T25]). However, the [DAH]2 in this mathematical formula is a typo of [DAH]*2, as evidenced by Equation 2 above [0035] of the instant Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites calculating a TAD index value for the hydrocarbon sample, and predicting an age of the hydrocarbon sample based on a relationship between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples and TAD index values of the calibration hydrocarbon samples. However, the prediction of the age of the hydrocarbon sample does not involve the calculated TAD index value for the hydrocarbon sample, or utilize the hydrocarbon sample in any way. Therefore, it is unclear how the age of the hydrocarbon sample can be predicted without utilizing any information about the hydrocarbon sample. Further clarification is needed.
Examiner’s Note: in order to overcome the above 112(b) rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite that the age of the hydrocarbon sample is predicted based on a relationship between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples and TAD index values of the calibration hydrocarbon samples, and the calculated TAD index value for the hydrocarbon sample.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites calculating a DAH index value for the hydrocarbon sample, and predicting an age of the hydrocarbon sample based on a relationship between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples and DAH index values of the calibration hydrocarbon samples. However, the prediction of the age of the hydrocarbon sample does not involve the calculated DAH index value for the hydrocarbon sample, or utilize the hydrocarbon sample in any way. Therefore, it is unclear how the age of the hydrocarbon sample can be predicted without utilizing any information about the hydrocarbon sample. Further clarification is needed.
Examiner’s Note: in order to overcome the above 112(b) rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite that the age of the hydrocarbon sample is predicted based on a relationship between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples and DAH index values of the calibration hydrocarbon samples, and the calculated DAH index value for the hydrocarbon sample.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 15-17 are rejected at least for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 1
Independent claims 1 and 8 are each drawn to a method. Claim 15 is drawn to a computing device. Each are statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, it is determined if the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claim 1 recites calculating a triaromatic dinosteranes (TAD) index for a hydrocarbon sample based on a concentration of the TAD, and predicting an age of the hydrocarbon sample based on a correlation between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples from different Jurassic epochs (Lower, Middle, and Upper Jurassic Epochs) and the TAD index values of the calibration samples. The step of calculating a TAD index based on a concentration of the TAD is a mathematical calculation-type abstract idea. Further, the act of predicting an age of a hydrocarbon sample based on a correlation between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples from different Jurassic epochs and the TAD index values of the calibration samples is a combination of an evaluation/determination-type abstract idea, as well as relying on a law of nature, i.e. the correlation between hydrocarbon age and the TAD index. Further, the abstract ideas recited are performed at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized computer for performing the abstract ideas. Independent claim 1 is therefore drawn to a judicial exception as a whole, as it incorporates both an abstract idea and a law of nature. Similarly, independent claim 8 recites calculating a des-A-hopane (DAH) index for a hydrocarbon sample based on a concentration of the DAH, and predicting an age of the hydrocarbon sample based on a relationship between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples from an Upper Jurassic Epoch between a Kimmeridgian Stage and a Tithonian Stage and the DAH index of the calibration hydrocarbon samples. The step of calculating a DAH index based on a concentration of the DAH is a mathematical calculation-type abstract idea. Further, the act of predicting an age of a hydrocarbon sample based on a correlation between known hydrocarbon ages of calibration hydrocarbon samples from an Upper Jurassic Epoch between a Kimmeridgian Stage and a Tithonia Stage and the DAH index values of the calibration hydrocarbon samples is a combination of an evaluation/determination-type abstract idea, as well as relying on a law of nature, i.e. the correlation between hydrocarbon age and the DAH index. Further, the abstract ideas recited are performed at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized computer for performing the abstract ideas. Independent claim 8 is therefore drawn to a judicial exception as a whole, as it incorporates both an abstract idea and a law of nature. Finally, claim 15 merely recites a generic computer for performing the abstract ideas, meaning that the claim still recites the abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, it is determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 further recites measuring a concentration of TAD in a hydrocarbon sample from a North Atlantic conjugate margin, and, correspondingly, obtaining known hydrocarbon ages and TAD index values of calibration hydrocarbon samples. This amounts to mere data gathering, and is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Similarly, independent 8 further recites measuring a concentration of DAH in a hydrocarbon sample, and, correspondingly, obtaining known hydrocarbon ages and DAH index values of calibration hydrocarbon samples. This amounts to mere data gathering, and is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 15 further recites a computing device comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and instructions provided to the memory to cause the processor to perform the method. This computing device is generically recited, and further, implementing an abstract idea or mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, is not a patentable application of that principle. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, it is determined if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, as previously stated, independent claims 1 and 8 recite measuring a concentration, and also obtaining ages and indices of calibration hydrocarbon samples, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering, and claim 15 recites a computing device comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and instructions provided to the memory to cause the processor to perform the method. The components recited in claim 15 are generic computer components, and are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Further, the application of the mental processes into an environment for assessing the age of hydrocarbons is nothing more than generally linking the mental process judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(e).
Further, with regards to the generically recited computing device comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and instructions provided to the memory to cause the processor to perform the method being nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components that are well-known in the art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Zhu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0063378; hereinafter Zhu; already of record) teaches a computer comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and instructions provided to the memory to cause the processor to perform a method ([0009]).
Koseoglu et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0016683; hereinafter Koseoglu; already of record) teaches a computer comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and instructions provided to the memory to cause the processor to perform a method ([0059]-[0060]).
Peterson et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0321215; hereinafter Peterson; already of record) teaches a computer comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and instructions provided to the memory to cause the processor to perform a method ([0128]-[0130], see Fig. 7).
Dreyfus et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0317751; hereinafter Dreyfus; already of record) teaches a computer comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and instructions provided to the memory to cause the processor to perform a method ([0053]-[0054]).
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as depending on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 10-12 of their Remarks that a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and that measuring a concentration of triaromatic dinosteranes (as in Claim 1) or des-A-hopane (as in Claim 8) cannot be practically performed in the human mind. However, the Examiner’s position is that the measuring of these concentrations is not a mental process, but rather mere data-gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. The claims are still drawn to an abstract idea. For a more detailed explanation, please see the Claim Rejections-35 USC 101 section of this instant Office Action.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 12-13 of their Remarks that the claims are directed to improvements in technology, as the claims are directed to predicting an age of the hydrocarbon sample with greater accuracy within a specific geologic timeframe, to enact more efficient production of hydrocarbon resources from the location from which the hydrocarbon sample was obtained. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to improvements in technology. As currently constructed, the claims will determine an age of hydrocarbons and produce the hydrocarbons regardless of the determined age. Therefore, the judicial exception, i.e. the determination of age of the hydrocarbons, is not related to the claimed practical application, i.e. production of hydrocarbons, and therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 13-14 of their Remarks that the claims enact a particular solution that amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception, as the Applicant discloses a method of predicting an age of the hydrocarbon sample to enact more efficient production of hydrocarbon resources from the location from which the hydrocarbon sample was obtained. However, the claims are not drawn to a particular solution, or selectively producing hydrocarbon based on the predicted age. As the claims are currently constructed, hydrocarbon will be produced regardless of the predicted age of the hydrocarbon sample. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or integrate the judicial exception to a practical application, particularly as the recited practical application, i.e. producing hydrocarbons, is not related to the recited judicial exception of predicting an age of the hydrocarbon sample.
Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 14-18 of their Remarks that the amendments to the claims render the claims allowable over the prior art are persuasive. However, the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights