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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 04/14/2026.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 17 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 5-8, 15-16 and 18 have been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 17 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baecker et al. “US 2022/0091090 A1” (Baecker) in view of the Wang et al. “US 2015/0275648 A1” (Wang).
Regarding Claim 1: A method for estimating a concentration of a type hydrocarbon in a formation comprising:
drilling a wellbore into the formation using a drill bit (at least see Baecker Abstract; Fig. 2; [0004]-[0005]);
pumping mud into the wellbore, wherein the drill bit is configured to cause drill bit metamorphism (DBM) in the mud to create a DBM indicator in the mud (at least see Baecker Abstract; Figs. 2-3A; [0028]);
pumping the mud out from the wellbore to an analysis unit comprising an acquisition unit, an estimator unit, and a correction unit (at least see Baecker Abstract; Figs. 3A-3B; [0043]);
acquiring, via the acquisition unit, a measurement representative of a concentration of the type of hydrocarbon in the mud (at least see Baecker Abstract; Figs. 3A-3B; [0002] and [0004]);
acquiring, via the acquisition unit and simultaneously with the acquiring the measurement representative of the concentration of the type of hydrocarbon in the mud, a measurement of the DBM indicator in the mud generated by the DBM, (at least see Baecker Abstract; Fig. 5; [0053] and [0074]-[0075]);
estimating, via the estimator unit, a concentration of the DBM indictor in the mud based on the measurement of the DBM indicator (at least see Baecker Abstract; Figs. 3A-3B; [0032] and [0034]); and
correcting, via the correction unit, an estimated concentration of the type of hydrocarbon in the formation, based on the estimating concentration of the (DBM) indicator in the mud (at least see Baecker Abstract; Fig. 3B; [0003]-[0005] and [0060]).
Baecker disclose the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the DBM indicator comprises benzene. However Wang disclose this (at least see Wang Abstract; Fig. 3; [0037] and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Wang’s teachings in Baecker’s enabled, for the advantage of implemented in hydrocarbon-related drilling operations extract data features with predefined criteria in a straightforward interpretation of mud gas analytical data.
Regarding Claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein: the type of hydrocarbon is a first type of hydrocarbon; and the acquiring the measurement representative of the concentration of the first type of hydrocarbon in the mud comprises acquiring a first measurement of a concentration of a second type of hydrocarbon present in the formation and the acquiring the measurement of the DBM indicator in the mud comprises acquiring a second measurement of the concentration of the DBM indicator generated by the DBM, the second type of hydrocarbon and the DBM indicator being distinct (at least see Baecker [0017]; Note “(CX,AN,LOG) is a way of doing measures and design of choice a mathematics that can be inherit with Backer ).
Regarding Claim 3: The method according to claim 2, wherein the concentration of the DBM indictor in the mud correlates an estimated concentration of the second type of hydrocarbon produced by DBM (at least see Baecker [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4: The method according to claim 3, wherein the estimating the concentration of the DBM indicator in the mud comprises determining a concentration of the second type of hydrocarbon produced by from a concentration cross-plot and the second measurement, and wherein the determining comprises using a regression curve relating the concentration of the DBM indictor in the mud to estimate the concentration of the second type hydrocarbon produced by the DBM obtained from the concentration cross-plot (at least see Baecker [0058]).
Regarding Claim 9: The method according to claim 2, wherein the acquiring the measurement representative of the concentration of the first type of hydrocarbon in the mud further comprises acquiring a third measurement of a first isotope signature of the first type of hydrocarbon in the mud, and a fourth measurement of a second isotope signature of the first type hydrocarbon in the mud prior to the mud being pumped into the wellbore (at least see Baecker [0032).
Regarding Claim 10: The method according to claim 9, wherein the DBM indicator comprises an estimated isotope signature of the type of hydrocarbon in the formation.
Regarding Claim 11: The method according to claim 10, wherein the estimating the concentration of the DBM indictor comprises calculating the estimated isotope signature from an isotopic cross-plot of the third measurement, versus a ratio calculated from the first and the second measurements (at least see Baecker Abstract; [0036]).
Regarding Claim 12: The method according to claim 11, wherein the estimating the concentration of the DBM indicator further comprises calculating from a generative curve the isotope signature of the first type hydrocarbon in the mud recovered from the drilling at a point where the concentration of the DBM indicator is zero (at least see Baecker Abstract; [0061]).
Regarding Claim 13: The method according to claim 12, wherein the correcting (130) comprises computing an estimated concentration of the first type of hydrocarbon produced by the DBM as a function of the third measurement, the fourth measurement, and the DBM indicator (at least see Baecker [0006]).
Regarding Claim 14: The method according to claim 13, wherein the correcting comprises subtracting the estimated concentration of the first type of hydrocarbon produced by the DBM from the first measurement (at least see Baecker [0029]).
Regarding Claim 17: The method according to claim 14 preceding claims, wherein the correcting comprises a calculation of an estimation of a concentration of at least a hydrocarbon in the formation (at least see Baecker Abstract; Fig. 1; [0027]).
Regarding Claims 17-20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-17 and 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 9-14, 17 and 19-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights