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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (WO-2014006592-A2) in view of Chen (EP-3224604-B1) in view of Walsh et al. (US-20140084927-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Vinegar discloses
A method for analyzing maturity of a subterranean hydrocarbon rock (¶ 16 & 17 under BACKGROUND AND RELATED ART, the rock is drilled at a target and depth indicating it is “subterranean”), comprising:
obtaining a subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample by drilling through
a subterranean zone (¶ 16 & 17 under BACKGROUND AND RELATED ART);
extracting bitumen out of the subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample using
a solvent (¶ 41 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS);
Vinegar does not disclose
“placing the subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample in a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) tube;
and measuring a ¹H spectrum and a ¹³C NMR spectrum with a NMR probe
using an NMR spectrometer comprising a static state high resolution measurement
technique”.
Chen, however, teaches
placing the subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample in a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) tube (¶ 2 & 3 under Background, the tube or other container to contain the specimen is inherent);
and measuring a ¹H spectrum and a ¹³C NMR spectrum with a NMR probe
using an NMR spectrometer technique (¶ 15 – 17 above Claims & Claim 1).
Vinegar in view of Chen do not explicitly teach
“Measuring carbon and hydrogen with high resolution measuring technique”
Walsh, however, teaches
Measuring carbon and hydrogen with high resolution measuring technique ([0006] & [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “facility of analyzing
hydrocarbon rock sample with NMR machine” as taught by Chen as well as the “high resolution measuring technique” of Walsh in the method of Vinegar.
The justification for this modification would be to 1) have a facility to use NMR spectroscopy to analyze hydrocarbon rock samples, and 2) to combine this with a “high-resolution facility” to make sure the NMR measurements are very precise and accurate.
Regarding claim 10
Vinegar discloses
A system for measuring maturity of a subterranean rock (¶ 16 & 17 under BACKGROUND AND RELATED ART, the rock is drilled at a target and depth indicating it is “subterranean”), the system comprising:
Vinegar does not disclose
“A sample tube, wherein a subterranean rock sample is placed; and
A nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometer comprising an NMR probe, wherein the NMR is the technique;
A user display system to represent an output NMR spectra comprising a ¹H spectrum and a ¹³C NMR spectrum”.
Chen, however, teaches
A sample tube, wherein a subterranean rock sample is placed (¶ 2 & 3 under Background, the tube or other container to contain the specimen is inherent); and
A nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometer comprising an NMR probe, wherein the NMR is the technique (¶ 15 – 17 above Claims & Claim 1);
A user display system to represent an output NMR spectra comprising a ¹H spectrum and a ¹³C NMR spectrum (¶ 15 – 17 above Claims & Claim 1 & ¶ 6 under Detailed Description),
Vinegar in view of Chen do not disclose
“Measuring carbon and hydrogen with a static high resolution.”
Walsh, however, teaches
Measuring carbon and hydrogen with a static high resolution ([0006] & [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “facility of analyzing
hydrocarbon rock sample with NMR machine” as taught by Chen as well as the “high resolution measuring technique” of Walsh in the method of Vinegar.
The justification for this modification would be to 1) have a facility to use NMR spectroscopy to analyze hydrocarbon rock samples, and 2) to combine this with a “high-resolution facility” to make sure the NMR measurements are very precise and accurate.
Regarding claim 11
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh teach the system of claim 10,
Vinegar, applied to claim 11, further teaches
wherein the subterranean rock comprises a kerogen intertwined within a mineral matrix (¶ 4 under BACKGROUND AND RELATED ART, the kerogen is in the mineral matrix of the rock).
Regarding claim 3
The steps of the method claim 3 are met by the operation of apparatus claim 11.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (WO-2014006592-A2) in view of Chen (EP-3224604-B1) in view of Walsh et al. (US-20140084927-A1) in view of Jian (CN-113176289-A).
Regarding claim 2
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh teach the method of claim 1,
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh do not teach
“Wherein the subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample has micro to nano Darcy permeability”.
Jian, however, teaches
Wherein the subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample has micro to nano Darcy permeability (¶ 24 under Contents of the Invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “Darcy permeability” as taught by Jian in the method of Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh.
The justification for this modification would be to create an NMR technique that shows more about hydrocarbon rock composition.
Claim(s) 4, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (WO-2014006592-A2) in view of Chen (EP-3224604-B1) in view of Walsh et al. (US-20140084927-A1) in view of Zhang (CN-112014345-A).
Regarding claim 12
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh teach the system of claim 11,
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh do not teach
“wherein a hydrogen/carbon (H/C) ratio of the kerogen is measured by the NMR spectrometer as the ¹H spectrum and the ¹³C NMR spectrum,”
Zhang, however, teaches
wherein a hydrogen/carbon (H/C) ratio of the kerogen is measured by the NMR spectrometer as the ¹H spectrum and the ¹³C NMR spectrum (¶ 1 under GB/T19144-2010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the facility of “measuring
the (H/C) ratio of as taught by Zhang in the system of Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh.
The justification for this modification would be to assess the quality of the organic matter and its potential to generate oil or gas.
Regarding claim 4
The steps of the method claim 4 are met by the operation of apparatus claim 12.
Regarding claim 13
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang teach the system of claim 12,
Zhang, applied to claim 13, further teaches
wherein the NMR spectrometer comprises a measurement of the ¹H spectrum and the ¹³C NMR spectrum of the NMR probe and the sample tube as a background signal (¶ 1 under GB/T19144-2010, the “background spectrum” is the background signal).
Regarding claim 14
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh teach the system of claim 10,
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh do not teach
“wherein the subterranean rock sample comprises small core plugs or crushed rocks”.
Zhang, however, teaches
wherein the subterranean rock sample comprises small core plugs or crushed rocks (¶ 1 under GB/T19144-2010, the flakes are the crushed specimen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “crushed rock specimen” as taught by Zhang in the system of Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to put a small sample of the kerogen in the spectrometer.
Regarding claim 16
Vinegar discloses
A method of analyzing subterranean rock (¶ 16 & 17 under BACKGROUND AND RELATED ART, the rock is drilled at a target and depth indicating it is “subterranean”), the method comprising:
Vinegar does not disclose
“Obtaining a subterranean rock sample as a core plug or crushed rock;
Placing the subterranean rock sample in a sample tube;
Performing a static state high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic measurement with a NMR probe to obtain a ¹H spectrum and a ¹³C NMR spectrum; and
Displaying the ¹H spectrum and the ¹³C NMR spectrum on a user display system”.
Chen, however, teaches
Performing a s nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic measurement with a NMR probe to obtain a ¹H spectrum and a ¹³C NMR spectrum (¶ 15 – 17 above Claims & Claim 1); and
Displaying the ¹H spectrum and the ¹³C NMR spectrum on a user display system (¶ 15 – 17 above Claims & Claim 1 & ¶ 6 under Detailed Description).
Subterranean sample is placed in a tube (¶ 2 & 3 under Background, the tube or other container to contain the specimen is inherent)
Vinegar in view of Chen do not teach
“Performing a static state high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic measurement,”
And
“Obtaining a subterranean rock sample as a core plug or crushed rock,”
Walsh, however, teaches
Performing a static state high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic measurement ([0006] & [0073]),
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh do not teach
“Obtaining a subterranean rock sample as a core plug or crushed rock,”
Zhang, however, teaches
Obtaining a subterranean rock sample as a core plug or crushed rock (¶ 1 under GB/T19144-2010, the flakes are the crushed specimen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “spectroscopic measurement” of Chen as well as the “static high-resolution measurement” as taught by Walsh as well as performing these on the “crushed rock sample” as taught by Zhang in the method of Vinegar.
The justification for this modification would be to create a highly accurate spectroscopy measurement on a subterranean rock sample.
Regarding claim 18
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang teach the method of claim 16,
Vinegar, applied to claim 18, further teaches
wherein the subterranean rock sample comprises a kerogen intertwined within a mineral matrix (¶ 4 under BACKGROUND AND RELATED ART).
Regarding claim 19
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang teach the method of claim 18,
Vinegar, applied to claim 19, further teaches
wherein a hydrogen/carbon (H/C) ratio of the Kerogen is measured by the NMR spectroscopic measurement (¶ 4 BACKGROUND AND RELATED ART).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (WO-2014006592-A2) in view of Chen (EP-3224604-B1) in view of Walsh et al. (US-20140084927-A1) in view of Xie (CN-211927499-U).
Regarding claim 15
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh teach the system of claim 10,
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh do not teach
“further comprising setting a user defined temperature for the NMR spectrometer”.
Xie, however, teaches
further comprising setting a user defined temperature for the NMR spectrometer (¶ 1 under Background).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “user defined temperature” as taught by Xie in the system of Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh.
The justification for this modification would be to ensure accuracy and reproducibility of results.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (WO-2014006592-A2) in view of Chen (EP-3224604-B1) in view of Walsh et al. (US-20140084927-A1) in view of Zhang (CN-112014345-A) in view of Liu (US-10760418-B1).
Regarding claim 17
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang teach the method of claim 16,
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang do not teach
“wherein the subterranean rock sample comprises an organic-rich shale or mudrock”.
Liu, however, teaches
wherein the subterranean rock sample comprises an organic-rich shale or mudrock (¶ 1 under BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “organic-rich shale as rock sample” as taught by Liu in the method of Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang.
The justification for this modification would be to use spectroscopy on a rock type that is well-known for possibly containing hydrocarbon deposits.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar (WO-2014006592-A2) in view of Chen (EP-3224604-B1) in view of Walsh et al. (US-20140084927-A1) in view of Zhang (CN-112014345-A) in view of Jin-Chang (CN-111551652-B).
Regarding claim 20
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang teach the method of claim 19,
Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang do not teach
“further comprising measuring the H/C ratio of kerogen by integrating the H/C ratio of an external reference sample, wherein the external reference sample is dimethylpolysiloxane”.
Jin-Chang, however, teaches
further comprising measuring the H/C ratio of kerogen by integrating the H/C ratio of an external reference sample, wherein the external reference sample is dimethylpolysiloxane (¶ 3, Contents Of Invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “reference sample of
dimethylpolysiloxane” as taught by Jin-Chang in the method of Vinegar in view of Chen in view of Walsh in view of Zhang.
The justification for this modification would be to create a method for detecting butane in the rock sample.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein measuring the H/C ratio comprises measuring a degree of aromaticity of the kerogen for the subterranean hydrocarbon
rock sample”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 6
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein measuring the 'H spectrum and the ¹³C
NMR spectrum is performed on an intact subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample without further treatment”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 7
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“measuring the ¹H spectrum and the ¹³C NMR spectrum of the NMR tube and the NMR probe as a background signal, wherein the background signal is
subtracted from the ¹H spectrum and the ¹³C NMR spectrum of the subterranean hydrocarbon rock.”
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 8
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“further comprising measuring the H/C ratio of kerogen in the subterranean hydrocarbon rock sample by integrating the H/C ratio of an external reference pure organic sample”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 9
The claim is allowable due to its dependency on object-to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 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, Walter 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
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852