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 Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 attempts to identify units of variables, such as MPa-1, mD and others. The claims should employ “in the units of” before all instances of any identification of units. Claims 2-8 are also objected to, due to their dependency. In addition, claim 8 employs double open parentheses, and should only employ a single open parentheses. 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 1-8 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. Instant independent claim 1 recites the limitations: “qsc is the gas production rate under standard conditions, m3d.” The instant filed specification fails to define and/or disclose what exactly constitutes (i.e. what operational parameters related to production rates) are considered “standard conditions,” as, opposed, to non-standard conditions, rendering the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to what the “standard conditions” in regards to production rate(s). In addition, it is unclear as to what the unit “d” constitutes, further rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract mathematical idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical method calculation steps of claims 1-8, obtained from acquired data to evaluate a corrected comprehensive productivity of a heterogeneous gas reservoir along its depth considering interlayer crossflow. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited method steps fails to the judicial exception into a practical application, such as performing a concrete real-world step or action. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mathematical method steps can be performed in a person’s mind, employing the data, or on a piece of paper, or employing a generic computer, which do not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Any data gathering steps by wireline formation testing or laboratory testing do not add any meaningful limitation to the claimed method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Conclusion
None of the prior art of record appear to read on the claimed invention. The closest prior art references are CN 114635682 A and CN 107818236 which disclose related methods to determining productivity of reservoirs along their depths related to possible crossflow, however, do not employ the specific mathematical formulas and calculations recited in instant independent claim 1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is also invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights