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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1-3 and 12 the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is improper over Zhang because Applicant has incorporated previously indicated allowable claim 4 into independent claims 1 and 12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has not incorporated all the claim elements of previously presented claim 4. Rather the amended claims incorporate a broader claim language. While the Examiner agrees that the amended independent claims overcome the rejection under Zhang, the claims are not allowable and are now rejected under Han et al. US 2011/0218735.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-6 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 5 recites the limitation "the remaining iron." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5-11 are dependent on canceled claim 4. Since claim 4 is canceled, claims 5-11 are in an improper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as claims 5 and 7 as depending on claim 1.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. US 2011/0218735.
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a method comprising: conveying a geological logging tool (fig. 1 #12) within a subterranean formation (fig. 1 #10; para. 0024); acquiring elemental data using the geological logging tool (fig. 6; para. 0037); calculating mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data (fig. 7 para. 0037), wherein the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based on the elemental data comprises calculating anhydrite and residuals content, then calculating calcite content based at least in part on remaining calcium content (fig. 7 para. 0037); and calculating lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy calculated from at least the elemental data acquired by the geological logging tool (whole disclosure; the entire purpose of the invention is for determining the lithology).
Regarding claim 2, Han discloses wherein the calculating mineralogy and the calculating lithology is performed in real time while the geological logging tool is still conveyed into the subterranean formation (title; para. 0038; claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Han discloses wherein the geological logging tool comprises at least one geological logging tool selected from the group consisting of pulsed neutron logging wireline tool, pulsed neutron logging-while-drilling tool, neutron-induced gamma ray spectroscopy tool with chemical sources, and any combination thereof (para. 0003, 0006).
Regarding claim 5, Han discloses determining when the remaining iron is incorporated into siderite or into hematite (para. 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses a method comprising: conveying a geological logging tool (fig. 1 #12) within a subterranean formation (fig. 1 #10; para. 0024); acquiring elemental data using the geological logging tool (fig. 6; para. 0037); calculating mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data (fig. 7 para. 0035-0037), wherein the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based on the elemental data comprises calculating dolomite and residuals content, then calculating pyrite content based at least in part on remaining iron and remaining sulfur (fig. 7 para. 0035-0037); and calculating lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy calculated from at least the elemental data acquired by the geological logging tool (whole disclosure; the entire purpose of the invention is for determining the lithology).
Regarding claim 13, Han discloses wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation further comprises calculating chlorite content from a minimum of remaining iron and residuals after calculating pyrite (para. 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 21, Han discloses a method comprising: conveying a geological logging tool (fig. 1 #12) within a subterranean formation (fig. 1 #10; para. 0024); acquiring elemental data using the geological logging tool (fig. 6; para. 0037); calculating mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data (fig. 7 para. 0035-0037), wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data comprises calculating anhydrite and residuals contents (fig. 7; para. 0037), then calculating dolomite and residuals contents (fig. 7; para. 0037), then calculating calcite content based at least in part on remaining calcium content (fig. 7; para. 0035-0037), then calculating pyrite content based at least in part on a minimum of remaining iron and remaining sulfur (fig. 7; para. 0035-0037), and then calculating chlorite content from minimum of remaining magnesium and remaining iron and residuals (fig. 7; para. 0035-0037); and calculating lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy calculated from at least the elemental data acquired by the geological logging tool (whole disclosure; the entire purpose of the invention is for determining the lithology).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 2011/0218735 in view of Suparman US 2012/0091328.
Regarding claim 6, Han fails to teach calculating a total organic carbon based on subtracting an amount of carbon in a carbon-bearing minerals from total carbon from the geological logging tool.
Suparman teaches calculating a total organic carbon based on subtracting an amount of carbon in a carbon-bearing minerals from total carbon from the geological logging tool (para. 0014) for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation (para. 0016).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculating a total organic carbon based on subtracting an amount of carbon in a carbon-bearing minerals from total carbon from the geological logging tool as taught by Suparman in the method of Han for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 2011/0218735 in view of Schmid US 2025/0224536.
Regarding claim 7, Han teaches that any known minerology may be measured with its method (para. 0035) but fails to explicitly teach calculating clay content and then calculating quartz, feldspar, and mica (QFM) content from silicon remaining.
Schmid teaches calculating clay content and then calculating quartz, feldspar, and mica (QFM) content from silicon remaining (para. 0076) for the purpose of determining the minerology and lithology for determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculating clay content and then calculating quartz, feldspar, and mica (QFM) content from silicon remaining as taught by Schmid in the method of Han for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Regarding claim 8, Han teaches determining when a remaining iron is incorporated into siderite or into hematite (para. 0035-0037).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 2011/0218735 and Schmid US 2025/0224536 in further view of Suparman US 2012/0091328.
Regarding claim 9, Han and Schmid fails to teach calculating a total organic carbon based on subtracting an amount of carbon in a carbon-bearing minerals from total carbon from the geological logging tool.
Suparman teaches calculating a total organic carbon based on subtracting an amount of carbon in a carbon-bearing minerals from total carbon from the geological logging tool (para. 0014) for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation (para. 0016).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculating a total organic carbon based on subtracting an amount of carbon in a carbon-bearing minerals from total carbon from the geological logging tool as taught by Suparman in the method of Han and Schmid for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 2011/0218735 in view of Hokstad US 2022/0187227.
Regarding claim 14, Han teaches that any known minerology may be measured with its method (para. 0035) but fails to explicitly teach calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating sulfates and sulfides.
Hokstad teaches calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating sulfates and sulfides (para. 0007) for the purpose of determining the minerology and lithology for determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating sulfates and sulfides as taught by Hokstad in the method of Han for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 2011/0218735 and Hokstad US 2022/0187227 in further view of Suparman US 2012/0091328.
Regarding claim 15, Han and Hokstad fails to teach wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating calcium carbonates.
Suparman teaches wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating calcium carbonates (para. 0014) for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation (para. 0016).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating calcium carbonates as taught by Suparman in the method of Han and Hokstad for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Regarding claim 16, Han and Hokstad fails to teach wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating iron-bearing minerals and magnesite.
Suparman teaches wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating iron-bearing minerals and magnesite (para. 0014; magnesite is a known carbonate) for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation (para. 0016).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating iron-bearing minerals and magnesite as taught by Suparman in the method of Han and Hokstad for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 2011/0218735, Hokstad US 2022/0187227, and Suparman US 2012/0091328 in further view of Schmid US 2025/0224536.
Regarding claim 17, Han, Hokstad, and Suparman fails to teach wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating aluminosilicates.
Schmid teaches wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating aluminosilicates (para. 0076; feldspar is an aluminosilicate) for the purpose of determining the minerology and lithology for determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein calculating the mineralogy of the subterranean formation based at least on the elemental data further comprises calculating aluminosilicates as taught by Schmid in the method of Han Hokstad, and Suparman for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Regarding claim 18, Han, Hokstad, and Suparman fails to teach wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating a quartz+feldspars+micas content.
Schmid teaches wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating a quartz+feldspars+micas content (para. 0076) for the purpose of determining the minerology and lithology for determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating a quartz+feldspars+micas content as taught by Schmid in the method of Han Hokstad, and Suparman for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Regarding claim 19, Han, Hokstad, and Suparman fails to teach wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating total clay minerals content.
Schmid teaches wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating total clay minerals content (para. 0076) for the purpose of determining the minerology and lithology for determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating total clay minerals content as taught by Schmid in the method of Han Hokstad, and Suparman for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Regarding claim 20, Han fails to teach wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating a calcite+dolomites+siderite+magnesite content.
Schmid teaches wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating a calcite+dolomites+siderite+magnesite content (para. 0076; total carbonate) for the purpose of determining the minerology and lithology for determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein calculating the lithology of the subterranean formation based at least on the mineralogy further comprises calculating a calcite+dolomites+siderite+magnesite content as taught by Schmid in the method of Han for the purpose of determining hydrocarbon saturation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights