Response to Amendment
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 .
Status of Claims
In the response of 12/16/2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 13 and 14 and canceled claim 15. Therefore claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments, concerning claims 1-6 and 13, filed 12/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically Applicant argues that the added amendment claim limitation “and determining fluid properties of a reservoir according to the final formation resistivity to assist in oil-gas reservoir development,” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04 II Step 2A Prong 2. (Remarks, Pages 10-11)
Examiner responds that MPEP § 2106.04 II, concerning Step 2A Prong 2, states, in part: “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, ..., if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” (Emphasis, Added)
In the case at hand, each step of the instant claims prior to the amendment was a disembodied concept or algorithm, having no and requiring no particular device or element perform the step. Thus, as there were no additional elements, besides other judicial exceptions, recited in claims, the original claims were directed to an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04 I) The instant amendment adds the claim limitation, “and determining fluid properties of a reservoir according to the final formation resistivity to assist in oil-gas reservoir development” which also recites or adds a disembodied concept or algorithm that also does not have or require a particular device or element to perform the step. Therefore, the instant amendment merely recites another judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea. Thus, in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04 II the added amendment limitation is insufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s argument, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04 II Step 2A Prong 2, the claims remain directed to the an abstract idea judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims recite patent eligible subject matter under MPEP § 2106.05 I Step 2B. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more because the claims provided in an improvement to the existing technology and solves a technical problem people have been eager to solve but never have successfully. (Remarks Pages 11-13)
Examiner responds that MPEP § 2106.05 I states, in part: An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature or natural phenomenon or abstract idea itself. " ("Adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. (Emphasis Added)
As already discussed above, the instant claims provide no additional elements beyond the abstract idea itself, and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept furnished by an additional element or combination of element sufficient to amount to significantly more under Step 2B. Moreover, concerning the argument that the claims provided in an improvement to the existing technology and solves a technical problem people have been eager to solve but never have successfully, this factor is irrelevant to a 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. (MPEP § 2106.05 I: As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.") ) (Emphasis Added)
Thus, contrary to Applicants argument the instant claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under Step 2B. Consequently, the claims remain directed ineligible subject matter.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a feature analysis module, configured to ...; a resistivity forward modeling module, configured to ...; a correction chart construction module, configured to ...; a parameter control module, configured ...; an instance verification module, configured to ...; and an arbitrary borehole condition correction module, configured to...” in claims 7-12. In accordance with the specification, at ¶0133, “The device of the present disclosure and its modules may be implemented by hardware circuits such as very large scale integrated circuits or gate arrays, semiconductors such as logic chips and transistors, or programmable hardware devices such as field programmable gate arrays and programmable logic devices, by software executed by various types of processors, or by a combination of the above hardware circuits and software, e.g. firmware.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the disembodied concepts, algorithms or mental processes, “step one, analyzing mud filtrate invasion features based on an actual resistivity logging curve; step two, determining an invasion relationship, and performing forward modeling on a resistivity logging response; step three, forming a correction chart by extracting invasion input and output parameters and performing inversion to extract a correction coefficient combining with a random forest method; step four, outputting a preliminary correction result, and performing parameter constraint control under a complex borehole condition to output a final formation resistivity and an invasion depth; and step five, performing inspection on a corrected resistivity curve combining with an actual gas test result, and determining fluid properties of a reservoir according to the final formation resistivity to assist in oil-gas reservoir development.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no particular device or apparatus is recited as or required to perform the steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no particular device or apparatus is recited as or required to perform the steps.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the disembodied concepts, algorithms or mental processes of, “analyzing mud filtrate invasion features based on an actual resistivity logging curve; determining an invasion mechanism, and performing forward modeling on a resistivity logging response; performing inversion by a random forest method to form a parameter correction chart; outputting a formation resistivity, and performing parameter control under a complex borehole condition; and performing inspection on an actual gas test result, and determining fluid properties of a reservoir according to the final formation resistivity to assist in oil-gas reservoir development.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the courts have held that preforming a mental process on a generic computer environment is an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III C. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because elements other than a generic process and program is recited.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the disembodied concepts, algorithms or mental processes of, “analyzing mud filtrate invasion features based on an actual resistivity logging curve; determining an invasion mechanism, and performing forward modeling on a resistivity logging response; performing inversion by a random forest method to form a correction chart; outputting a formation resistivity, and performing parameter control under a complex borehole condition; and performing inspection on an actual gas test result, and determining fluid properties of a reservoir according to the final formation resistivity to assist in oil-gas reservoir development.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the courts have held that preforming a mental process on a generic computer environment is an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III C. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because elements other than a generic process and program is recite.
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 13-14 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 13 recites the limitation "the final formation resistivity" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the final formation resistivity" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner agrees with the conclusion of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China that the claims define over the prior art. Specifically in this case the prior art of record does not disclose the method of claim 1, including “step three, forming a correction chart by extracting invasion input and output parameters and performing inversion to extract a correction coefficient combining with a random forest method,” nor disclose the computer device of claim 13, including “performing inversion by a random forest method to form a parameter correction chart”
Claims 7-12 each include the limitations of claim 1 and therefore also recite patentable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEROLD B MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1564. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, Th-F 10am-7pm, W 1pm-5pm.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 5712701210. 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.
/JEROLD B MURPHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2687
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688