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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite since it is not clear how a carbonate content of the rock sample located in the acid cup of the reaction chamber is determined in the method from only the two steps of recording the first pressure value and the second pressure value. It is unclear how the first and second pressure values are used in the method to determine a carbonate content of the rock sample since no other steps of the method are recited beyond the steps of recording the first and second pressure values. See this same problem in claim 11.
Claim 2 is indefinite since claim 2 recites that the carbonate content of the rock sample is determined based on at least one of a calibration model, the recorded first pressure value, and the recorded second pressure value. It is not clear how the carbonate content of the rock sample can be determined from only a calibration model, or only the first pressure value, or only the second pressure value since each of these is a possibility from the recitation of “at least one” in claim 2. It is also not clear how a calibration model and/or the first pressure value and/or the second pressure value are used to “calculate” the carbonate content of the rock sample. What is the formula or equation used to calculate the carbonate content? Without knowing how to “calculate” the carbonate content, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to practice the method to determine the carbonate content of the rock sample. See these same problems in claim 12.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gajji et al (US 2017/0199109, submitted in the IDS filed on February 28, 2024) in view of Teotonio Da Silva (US 2021/0032975).
With regards to claims 1 and 11, Gajji et al teach of an automated calcimeter system and a method for determining a carbonate content of a sample using the automated calcimeter system. The method comprises connecting an automated calcimeter 5 to an acquisition system or an integrated central processing unit system 105 via a communication link 100, wherein the acquisition system or integrated central processing system 105 is configured for recording and/or receiving measured pressure values. See Figure 4, and paragraph 0038 in Gajji et al where it states:
PNG
media_image1.png
125
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
188
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The method then comprises placing a sample comprising a ground sample of an oil well or drill cuttings (see paragraphs 0022, 0024 and 0042 in Gajji et al) and hydrochloric acid (HCL) (see paragraphs 0022 and 0025 in Gajji et al) into an acid cup of a reaction chamber 50 of the calcimeter 5, and stirring the sample and acid in the acid cup of the reaction chamber 50 using an external magnetic plate 90 for stirring a magnetic stirrer 95 located inside of the acid cup of the reaction chamber 50. See Figure 4 and paragraph 0037 in Gajji et al where it states:
PNG
media_image3.png
206
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gajji et al teach that any type of stirring mechanism may be substituted for the magnetic plate 90 and the magnetic stirrer 95, provided that the substitute mechanism does not undesirably impact the acid-carbonate reaction. The method then comprises the step of recording with a pressure sensor 70 in the calcimeter 5 a first pressure value at or after a first time duration of stirring the sample, wherein the first pressure value is indicative of first gas pressure within the reaction chamber 50 at or after the first time duration of stirring, and recording with the pressure sensor 70 a second pressure value at or after a second time duration of stirring the sample, wherein the second pressure value is indicative of a second gas pressure within the reaction chamber 50 at or after the second duration of shaking. Gajji et al teach that the first time duration of stirring the sample is about 30 seconds, wherein an in the pressure in the reaction chamber 50 during the first time duration of stirring indicates the presence of calcium carbonate or calcite in the sample, and that the second time duration of stirring the sample is greater than 30 seconds, wherein a further increase in pressure in the reaction chamber 50 during the second time duration of stirring indicates the presence of another carbonate in the sample, such as magnesium carbonate or dolomite. See paragraph 0031 in Gajji et al where it states “Reaction chamber 50 may comprise a pressure sensor.”, paragraph 0033 in Gajji et al where it states “Also as shown in Fig. 2A, is pressure transducer 70. Pressure transducer 70 may convert the pressure readings to an electrical signal that may be registered and interpreted by the electronics of automated calcimeter system 5”, and paragraph 0023 in Gajji et al where it states:
PNG
media_image4.png
172
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See Figures 2A, 3 and 4, and paragraphs 0002-0004, 0014-0016, 0022-0024, 0031, 0033, 0036-0038, and 0040-0042 in Gajji et al.
Gajji et al fail to teach that the sample analyzed for carbonate content can be a rock sample, and fail to teach that the sample and acid are mixed in the acid cup of the reaction chamber 50 by either externally shaking the calcimeter or performing a shaking process in an integrated part of the calcimeter.
Teotonio Da Silva teaches of an autocalcimeter that determines the carbon content of a subterranean formation by analyzing samples of drill cuttings obtained from the subterranean formation. Teotonio Da Silva teaches that the samples of drill cuttings are pieces of rock, and that these pieces of rock are analyzed in the calcimeter by adding HCl to a sample, mixing the acid and sample together, and measuring a pressure of carbon dioxide that evolves by the reaction of the calcium-containing minerals in the sample with the HCl. See the abstract and paragraphs 0014, 0033 and 0043 in Teotonio Da Silva.
Based on a combination of Gajji et al and Teotonio Da Silva, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the automated calcimeter and the method for determining carbonate content in a sample taught by Gajji et al for analyzing carbonate content in a rock sample because Gajji et al teach that the method can be performed on any type of sample which may potentially comprises carbonates such as samples extracted from oil well cores or drilled cuttings (see paragraph 0024 in Gajji et al), and Teotonio Da Silva teaches that drill cuttings are pieces of rock which can be analyzed in an automated calcimeter using the same steps of reacting the rock sample with an acid and measuring a resulting increase in pressure due to the rection as taught by Gajji et al for analyzing carbonate content of a sample in an automated calcimeter. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the sample and acid in the acid cup of the reaction chamber 50 in the automated calcimeter taught by Gajji et al by either externally shaking the calcimeter or performing a shaking process in an integrated part of the calcimeter because Gajji et al teach that any type of stirring mechanism may be substituted for the magnetic plate 90 and the magnetic stirrer 95 used to mix the sample and the acid together, provided that the substitute mechanism does not undesirably impact the acid-carbonate reaction (see paragraph 0037 in Gajji et al), and externally shaking or internally shaking the calcimeter taught by Gajji et al with an integrated part of the calcimeter would equivalently achieve the same type of mixing of the sample and acid in the reaction chamber 50 of the calcimeter taught by Gajji et al as the magnetic stirrer 95 without having to introduce a foreign object into the mixture of the sample and acid.
With regards to claims 2 and 12, Gajji et al teach that the carbonate content of the sample in the method is calculated based on a calibration curve, the recorded first pressure value and the recorded second pressure value. See paragraph 0023 in Gajji et al where it states:
PNG
media_image4.png
172
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also, see paragraph 0040 in Gajji et al where it states:
PNG
media_image5.png
350
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 3-4 and 13-14, Gajji et al teach that the method comprises calculating both a calcite (calcium carbonate) content of the sample based on the recorded first pressure value, and calculating a dolomite (magnesium carbonate) content of the sample based on the recorded second pressure value. See paragraph 0023 in Gajji et al where it states:
PNG
media_image4.png
172
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 5 and 15, Gajji et al teach that the second time duration of mixing the sample and the acid is greater than the first time duration of mixing, wherein the first time duration of mixing is about thirty seconds, and the second time duration of mixing is any time after 30 seconds. See paragraph 0023 in Gajji et al reproduced above.
With regards to claims 6 and 16, Gajji et al fail to teach that the second time duration of mixing the sample and the acid is at least about 15 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix the sample and acid in the method taught by Gajji et al for a second time duration of at least about 15 minutes since Gajji et al teach that the second time duration of mixing is any time after 30 seconds, and mixing the sample and acid for at least about 15 minutes would ensure that all remaining carbonate content in the sample reacts with the acid to produce carbon dioxide.
With regards to claims 7 and 17, the mixing of the sample and the acid using the magnetic stirrer 95 and the magnetic plate 90 in the method taught by Gajji et al is continuous and uninterrupted excluding a time period associated with recordation of the first pressure value and/or the second pressure value, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the shaking of the calcimeter when substituted for the magnetic stirring to also be continuous and uninterrupted.
With regards to claims 8 and 18, Gajji et al teach of calibrating the calcimeter before the sample and the HCl are placed into the acid cup of the reaction chamber 50. See paragraph 0040 in Gajji et al where it states:
PNG
media_image5.png
350
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 9-10 and 19-20, Gajji et al teach that the calibrating of the calcimeter comprises preparing sets of carbonate standards comprising calcium carbonate and HCl, placing each set of the standards into the reaction chamber 50 of the calcimeter, and performing the same steps of mixing the standard samples with the acid for both the first and second time durations as for a test sample, measuring the pressure values produced after the first and second time durations in the reaction chamber, and using the measured pressure values to form a calibration curve which is a plot of the measured pressure values vs. amount of the sample analyzed in each set of the standards. See paragraph 0040 of Gajji et al reproduced above. Gajji et al fail to teach that the formation of the calibration curve comprises mixing or shaking each set of the standard samples for a third time duration that is less than the first time duration, stopping the mixing or shaking after the third time duration and waiting for the first time duration to expire before measuring pressure in the reaction chamber, and digitally calculating a slope of a best fit line between the digitally plotted points of the calibration curve. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these steps when forming the calibration curve in the method taught by Gajji et al because mixing or shaking each set of the standard samples for a third time duration that is less than the first time duration, stopping the mixing or shaking after the third time duration and waiting for the first time duration to expire before measuring pressure in the reaction chamber would allow for different amounts of calcium carbonate in each set of the standard samples to be fully reacted with the acid in the reaction chamber while also allowing one to assess the effect of mixing or shaking on the reaction process, and a calculation of a slope of a best fit line between the digitally plotted points of the calibration curve taught by Gajji et al would indicate the sensitivity of the automated calcimeter and the method performed with the calcimeter by showing how much the measured pressure values of the standard samples change in response to a change in the concentration of calcium carbonate in the standard samples.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please make note of: Ammar et al (US 2019/0064039) who teach of a method and a system for analyzing a rock sample extracted from a geological formation; and Sadallah et al (FR 2920226 A1) who teach of a calcimetry method for analyzing calcium carbonate in soil and rock samples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (571)272-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MAUREEN WALLENHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights