Detailed Action
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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 5, 2026, is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on June 5, 2026, is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
In reference to clams 1-20: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., Abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed at a judicial exception unless the claim includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method of formation evaluation, comprising:
evaluating conductivity, total shale porosity, effective porosity and total porosity based on logging tool measurements corresponding to same invaded formation volume;
calculating a total water saturation value and an effective water saturation value using the conductivity, the total shale porosity, the effective porosity and the total porosity so that to have a same non-conductive pore volume result based on the total porosity and based on an effective porosity; and adjusting a value of dry clay density based on a difference between the total water saturation value and the effective water saturation value.”
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “evaluating conductivity, total shale porosity, effective porosity and total porosity based on logging tool measurements corresponding to same invaded formation volume; calculating a total water saturation value and an effective water saturation value using the conductivity, the total shale porosity, the effective porosity and the total porosity so that to have a same non-conductive pore volume result based on the total porosity and based on an effective porosity; and adjusting a value of dry clay density based on a difference between the total water saturation value and the effective water saturation value.” These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, calculating a total water saturation or adjusting a value). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method having “a logging tool” but this logging tool is used for data gathering at a high level of generality and is not considered to be extra-solution activity.
In fact, considering claim 11, for instance, includes a “logging tool measurements, [and] a data processing unit” are merely a generic computer processing component/software that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
This limitation merely establishes a field-of-use and broadly recites the “a logging tool measurements, [and] a data processing unit” are part of the object on which the system operates (that is, the object that simply provides the “collection”, “calculating” and “adjusting a value” rather than being a particular machine which implements the system or method (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: evaluating conductivity, evaluating total water saturation and adjusting the value of dry clay. The claim does not recite any real-world actions that are taken because of adjusting the value of dray clay. The claim establishes a “these computational analysis” as the general field-of-use but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above about Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 11 is analogous to claim 1, except that it is directed to a “an apparatus”, and the rational is clearly stated above.
Claim 19 is analogous to claim 1, except that it is directed to a computer-readable recording medium with software/hardware related to the computer platform that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to calculating various attributes and is considered a mental and/or computational process.
Dependent claims 3-5: the instant claims are directed to evaluating conductivity, including calculating one or more clay-bound water saturation and receiving core analysis results in which they are considered a mental and/or computational process.
Dependent claims 6-10: the instant claim is directed to explicit calculation of various variables and attributes as related to a formation evaluation and are considered a mental and/or computational process.
Dependent claim 12: the instant claim is directed at calculating various attributes and is considered a mental and/or computational process.
Dependent claim 13-15: the instant claims are directed to evaluating conductivity, including calculating one or more clay-bound water saturation and receiving core analysis results in which they are considered a mental and/or computational process.
Dependent claims 16-18: the instant claims are directed to evaluating conductivity, including calculating one or more clay-bound water saturation and receiving core analysis results in which they are considered a mental and/or computational process.
Dependent claim 20: the instant claims are directed to evaluating conductivity, including calculating one or more clay-bound water saturation and receiving core analysis results in which they are considered a mental and/or computational process.
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-20: Peeters et al. (Petrophysics Publication, “Review of Existing Shaly-Sand Models and Introduction of New Method Based on Dry-Clay Parameters,” hereon Peeters) discloses a multitude of methods of formation evaluation (Shaly-sand) based on dry clay parameters (see Peeters, page 543, Abstract). One of the methods includes two main methods, one using shale conductivity and cation exchange capacity. These methods can be linked through the bound-water saturation because the bound water produces in all models’ additional conductivity that also includes pure sand conductivity to obtain total conductivity. In these methods, the dry clay volume is estimated from the difference of the apparent neutron and density porosity, in the total porosity system.
However, unlike Peeters, the instant application differs in that it “evaluate conductivity, total shale porosity and total porosity based on the logging tool measurements corresponding to same invaded formation volume; to a total water saturation value and an effective water saturation value using dual water method, the conductivity, the total shale porosity and the total porosity so that to have a same non-conductive pore volume result based on total porosity and based on an effective porosity; and to adjust a value of dry clay density based on a difference between the total water saturation value and the effective water saturation value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ali et al. (U.S. PAP 2016/0356912) discloses a method of estimating fluid saturations includes obtaining amplitude values of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data for a material, with each amplitude value being associated with a longitudinal magnetization recovery (T1 relaxation) time and a transverse magnetization decay (T2 relaxation) time. A mean is calculated as a function of the amplitude values and the T1 and T2 relaxation times for the amplitude values. Hydrocarbon saturation of pore space of the material is estimated as a function of the deviation of the mean from a threshold hydrocarbon saturation indicator and a threshold water saturation indicator, using the processor. Water saturation of the pore space of the material is estimated as a function of the deviation of the mean from the threshold hydrocarbon saturation indicator and the threshold water saturation indicator, using the processor.
Clavaud (U.S. Patent No. 7,263,443) discloses an algorithm to compute water saturation in thin-bedded formations in which the inputs include the horizontal resistivity, the vertical resistivity, the fine-grained volumetric fraction, and the water resistivity. The algorithm considers the thin bed that is a bi-modal system having both coarse grain layers and fine grain layers. Knowing the horizontal and vertical resistivity and the amount of fine-grain material (from NMR measurement, for example), one can calculate the resistivity of the coarse grain and fine grain layers. One can then calculate the amount of water in each layer using, for example, Archie's law, and then the total amount of water and oil in the system by volumetric computation.
Mollison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,493,632) discloses interpretation of measurements made by well logging instruments for the purpose of determining the fluid content of earth formations. More specifically, the invention is related to methods for calculating fractional volumes of various fluids disposed in the pore spaces of earth formations where these earth formations include laminations of shale with reservoir rock that may include dispersed shales.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
