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 application filed on 07/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The IDS received on 0925/2025, 04/11/2025, 07/22/2024 and 11/20/2023 have been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “acquiring (110) a measurement representative of a concentration of the hydrocarbon in the mud; estimating (120) an indicator of drill bit metamorphism in the mud; and correcting (130) at least one measurement representative of the concentration of the hydrocarbon in the mud, based on the indicator of drill bit metamorphism (DBM).”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe method for estimating a concentration of a hydrocarbon in mud recovered from a well. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper.
The claim, at its heart, is directed to collecting data, analyzing it using mathematical models (regression, cross-plots), and correcting it—i.e., mathematical relationships and data analysis. These are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance (see MPEP 2106.04(a), Example 37, and 2019 PEG).
As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 18 and 19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 18 and 19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-17 and 20 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2-17 and 20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device and a step for gathering information (devices recited in the claim). When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is an insignificant extra solution activity to the recited abstract idea.
The claim does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application beyond the abstract idea itself. The recited steps are performed by generic devices or processors, and the improvement is in the accuracy of a measurement, not in a technological process or machine.
As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 18 and 19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 18 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 19 further includes a processor and memory, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 18 and 19 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-17 and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-17 and 20 depend. As a result, claims 2-17 and 20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device and a step for gathering information. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 18 and 19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 18 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 19 further includes a processor and memory, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 18 and 19 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-17 and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-17 and 20 depend. As a result, claims 2-17 and 20 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 18 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A system or apparatus defined merely by software, or terms synonymous with software or files, represents functional descriptive material (e.g. data structures or software) per se. Such material is considered non-statutory when claimed without appropriate corresponding structure. Here, in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the Applicant’s computer program product encompasses functions that can be executed entirely as software per se. Further, the recited computer readable medium is interpreted as not imparting any structural limitations on the claim in view of paragraph 312 of Applicant’s Specification, and the recited processor is interpreted as being outside the scope of the claimed computer program product. As currently written, the claimed system lacks structure and is therefore non-statutory. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 19-20 recites "means plus function" limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for:
The terms "acquisition unit," "estimation unit," and "correction unit" are functional and not clearly defined in terms of structure or how they interact. The claims do not specify sufficient structural limitations to distinguish the claimed device from a general-purpose computer or processor. The claims rely on functional language without clear boundaries, making it unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what is being claimed.
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification,perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
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 –
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baecker et al. “US 2022/0091090 A1” (Baecker).
Regarding Claim 1: A method for estimating a concentration of a hydrocarbon in mud recovered from a well penetrating a formation, implemented in an estimation device (2), comprising:
acquiring (110) a measurement representative of a concentration of the hydrocarbon in the mud (at least see Baecker Abstract; Figs. 3A-3B; [0002] and [0004]);
estimating (120) an indicator of drill bit metamorphism in the mud (at least see Baecker Abstract; Figs. 3A-3B; [0032] and [0034]); and
correcting (130) at least one measurement representative of the concentration of the hydrocarbon in the mud, based on the indicator of drill bit metamorphism (DBM) (at least see Baecker Abstract; Fig. 3B; [0003]-[0005] and [0060]).
Regarding Claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein acquiring (110) comprises acquiring a first measurement (CX,AN,LOG) of a concentration of a first hydrocarbon present in the formation and acquiring a second measurement (CX,EN,LOG) of a concentration of DBM indicating compound generated by DBM, the first hydrocarbon and the DBM indicating compound 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 indicator of DBM in the mud is an estimated concentration (CX,AN,DBM) of the first hydrocarbon produced by DBM (at least see Baecker [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4: The method according to claim 3, wherein estimating an indicator of DBM in the mud comprises determining a concentration of the first hydrocarbon produced by DBM from a concentration cross-plot and the second measurement (CX,EN,LOG), and wherein determining comprises using a regression curve relating the concentration (CX,EN,LOG) of the DBM indicating compound in the mud to estimate a concentration (CX,AN,DBM) of the first hydrocarbon produced by DBM obtained from the concentration cross-plot (at least see Baecker [0058]).
Regarding Claim 5: The method according to claim 4, wherein the concentration of the first hydrocarbon is a concentration (CX,AN,LOG) of an alkane or benzene in the mud, and wherein the estimating (120) comprises determining a concentration of methane (C1,AN,DBM), ethane (C2,AN,DBM), propane (C3,AN,DBM), butane (C4,AN,DBM), pentane (C5,AN,DBM), or benzene (C6,AN,DBM) produced by drill bit metamorphism from the concentration cross-plot(s) (at least see Baecker [0062]).
Regarding Claim 6: The method according to claim 4, wherein the estimating (120) comprises estimating a concentration of butane (C4,AN,DBM) and/or a concentration of pentane (C5,AN,DBM) produced by DBM from a projection curve interpolating estimated concentrations of methane (C1,AN,DBM), ethane (C2,AN,DBM), and/or propane (C3,AN,DBM) produced by DBM (at least see Baecker [0051]).
Regarding Claim 7: The method according to claim 6, wherein correcting (130) the measurement representative of the concentration of the hydrocarbon in the mud comprises subtracting the estimated concentration (CX,AN,DBM) of the first hydrocarbon produced by DBM from the first measurement (CX,AN,LOG) (at least see Baecker [0016]).
Regarding Claim 8: The method according to claim 7, wherein the acquiring (110) further comprises acquiring a third measurement 13 CX,EX,MES) of an isotope signature of the hydrocarbon in the mud, and a fourth measurement (δ¹³ Cₓ,OBM,MES) of an isotope signature of the hydrocarbon in the mud prior to being used in the well, and wherein the correcting (130) comprising correcting the third measurement (δ¹³ Cₓ,EX,MES) based on: the fourth measurement (δ¹³ CX,OBM,MES), the corrected measurement (CX,AN,COR) representative of the concentration of the hydrocarbon in the mud, the first measurement (CX,AN,LOG), and the indicator of DBM (CX,AN,DBM) (at least see Baecker 0046]).
Regarding Claim 9: The method according to claim 2, wherein the acquiring (110) further comprises acquiring a third measurement (δ¹³Cₓ,EX,MES) of an isotope signature of the hydrocarbon in the mud, and a fourth measurement CX,OBM,MES) of an isotope signature of the hydrocarbon in the mud prior to being used in the well (at least see Baecker [0032).
Regarding Claim 10: The method according to claim 9, wherein the indicator of DBM in the mud is an estimated isotope signature (δ¹³ Cₓ,f) of the hydrocarbon in the geological formation.
Regarding Claim 11: The method according to claim 10, wherein estimating (120) an indicator of DBM comprises calculating the estimated isotope signature (δ¹³Cₓ,f) from an isotopic cross-plot of the third measurement (δ¹³ Cₓ,EX,MES), versus a ratio calculated from the first (CX,AN,LOG) and the second (CX,EN,LOG) measurements (at least see Baecker Abstract; [0036]).
Regarding Claim 12: The method according to claim 11, wherein estimating (120) an indicator of drill bit metamorphism further comprises calculating from a generative curve, an isotope signature (δ¹³ Cₓ,f) of the hydrocarbon in the mud recovered from the drilling at the point where the concentration of the DBM indicating compound 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 (CX,AN,DBM) of the first hydrocarbon produced by DBM as a function of the third measurement (δ¹³ Cₓ,EX,MES), the fourth measurement (δ¹³ CX,OBM,MES), and the indicator of DBM (δ¹³Cₓ,ƒ) (at least see Baecker [0006]).
Regarding Claim 14: The method according to claim 13, wherein the correcting (130) comprises subtracting the estimated concentration (CX,AN,DBM) of the first hydrocarbon produced by DBM, from the first measurement (CX,AN,LOG) (at least see Baecker [0029]).
Regarding Claim 15: The method according to claim 14, wherein the first hydrocarbon is an alkane and the DBM indicating compound is an alkene, carbon monoxide, and/or hydrogen (at least see Baecker [0028]).
Regarding Claim 16: The method according to claim 14, wherein the first hydrocarbon is benzene and the DBM indicating compound is an alkene, carbon monoxide, and/or hydrogen (at least see Baecker [0034]).
Regarding Claim 17: The method according to claim 14 preceding claims, wherein the correcting (130) 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 18-20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-17.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
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