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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 1, the units and labels on the graph are difficult to read.
Fig. 3 includes abbreviations not defined in the original disclosure (RNM, CBW, and IRR) while abbreviations mentioned for Fig. 3 in the original disclosure (BC, BF [0018]) are not in Fig. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The equations for k [0026], Nsumk ([0029] and [0038]) and NsumK’ ([0029] and [0039]) are difficult to read.
“n-Ksom” appears throughout the disclosure [0014][0025] but appears to be a typographical error.
“carrying the out” [0014] appears to be a typographical error for --carrying out the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “(n-Ksom)” on line 2 but appears to be a typographical error. 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 1-7 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the following claims:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
"the selection" in line 1;
“the first campaign” in line 3;
“the sum of the permeability index” in line 13
“the sigmoidal function” in line 14;
“the curve” in line 15;
“the first inflection” in lines 17-18;
“the same” in lines 18-19;
“the out pressure measurements” in line 20; and
“the value” in line 20.
Claim 2 recites “the increment” (line 1) and “the accumulation” (line 2).
Claim 3 recites “the relation” (line 2) and “the porosities” (line 3).
Claim 4 recites “the accumulated sum” (lines 1-2) and “the values” (line 2).
Claim 5 recites the limitations:
“the previous accumulated permeability index value” (lines 1-2);
“the value” (line 2);
“the total sum” (lines 2-3);
“the last measured depth” (line 3); and
“the well” (line 3).
Claim 6 recites “the permeability index data” (lines 1-2) and “the accumulated permeability index sum” (line 3).
Claim 7 recites the limitations:
“the normalization distribution” (line 1);
“the first value” (line 2);
“the series” (lines 2-3); and
“the last value” (line 3).
Claim 1 recites “the first campaign” (line 3). The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “first campaign”. The disclosure does not provide additional guidance as to what defines a “first campaign”.
Claim 1 recites “argilosity porosity” (line 5) but the disclosure does not provide additional guidance as to what this value is. Argilosity typically refers to clay content so it is unclear as to what argilosity porosity is. It is unclear if applicant meant to separate the terms to be --argilosity, porosity--.
Claim 1 recites “a permeability index” (line 8) but it is unclear if this is the same as the positively recited “permeability index per depth sample” in line 7. Further, it is unclear which “the permeability index” is being referred to in lines 10 and 13, if they are different.
Claim 1 recites “carrying the out pressure measurements above” but the examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “out pressure measurements”. The term is not one recognized in the art and the disclosure does not offer any additional guidance as to what these measurements are, only that they are carried out. It is unclear if this was meant to read “carry out the pressure measurements above”, but for the purpose of examination has been read in this way.
Claim 3 recites “a permeability index” (line 2) but it is unclear whether this is the same as the multiple “permeability index” positively recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 further recites “the relation between the porosities” (lines 2-3) but it is unclear as to which “porosities” of the multiple “porosities” positively recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “wherein at each depth, the previous accumulated permeability index value is added, thereby to reach the value of the total sum of the permeability index at the last measured depth of the well”. As far as the examiner can understand, at each depth, the previous accumulated permeability index value is added to a total giving you the total sum of the permeability. However, it is unclear how the total sum of the permeability index is at the last measured depth of the well as the previous accumulated index value is added and not the current measured depth of the well. Further, it is unclear as to what is additionally required by “wherein there is an NMR logging” (lines 3-4) as NMR logging is positively recited and required from claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (CN112016753) teaches calculating effective porosity for nuclear magnetic resonance logging but remains silent as to plotting a graph of a normalized sum of the permeability index by effective porosity; after obtaining an effective porosity value corresponding to the first inflection of the first derivative of the sigmoidal function, applying the same as minimum cutoff.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights