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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0071], line 1: Reference numeral –206 – should replace reference numeral “204.”
Paragraph [0074], line 6: A – comma – should be inserted after the chemical symbol “As.”
Paragraph [0076], line 5: A – comma – should be inserted prior to the term “such.”
Paragraph [0077], line 2: Is the term “persistency” the correct word for this sentence?
Paragraph [0079], line 3: Either the article “the” or the term “said” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 4, claim line 8: The phrase “the correction factor” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-20 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.
Re claim 1, claim line 6: The term “strong” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how the term “strong” is to be defined. It is unclear what makes a base a strong base versus a base that is not deemed to be strong. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the metes and bounds of the claim are also unknown. Thus, the term and the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 6, claim line 2: The term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how the term “approximately” is to be defined. The specification is silent as to how near or far a time may be from the value of four or five hours and still be deemed to be approximate those two times. The specification fails to provide an error threshold that defines the percentage error allowed in the time to explain the term approximately. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the metes and bounds of the claim are also unknown. Thus, both the term and the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 8, claim line 1: The term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how the term “approximately” is to be defined. The specification is silent as to how near or far a temperature may/must be from the value of 105 degrees Centigrade and still be deemed to be approximate the claimed temperature. The specification fails to provide an error threshold that defines the percentage error allowed in the temperature to explain the term approximately. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the metes and bounds of the claim are also unknown. Thus, both the term and the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 9, claim line 3: The term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how the term “approximately” is to be defined. The specification is silent as to how near or far a distance may/must be from the value of three or four centimeters and still be deemed to be approximate those two values/distances. The specification fails to provide an error threshold that defines the percentage error allowed in the distance to explain the term approximately. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the metes and bounds of the claim are also unknown. Thus, both the term and the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 11, claim line 3: The term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how the term “approximately” is to be defined. The specification is silent as to how near or far a distance may/must be from the value of three or four centimeters and still be deemed to be approximate those two values/distances. The specification fails to provide an error threshold that defines the percentage error allowed in the distance to explain the term approximately. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the metes and bounds of the claim are also unknown. Thus, both the term and the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 18, claim line 2: The term “strong” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how the term “strong” is to be defined. It is unclear what makes a base a strong base versus a base that is not deemed to be strong. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the metes and bounds of the claim are also unknown. Thus, the term and the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
NOTE: All dependent claims (2-19) are rejected because the independent claim, claim 1, has been rejected under 35 USC 112(b)/(2).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art was not relied upon to reject claims 1-20 because the prior art of record fails to teach and/or make obvious a method comprising preparing an extraction solution comprising an amount of a carboxylic acid, an amount of a chelating agent, and an amount of a base; and using the extraction solution, obtaining a soil extract from each soil sample of the plurality of soil samples in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art, “Geochemical Evidences of Trace Metal Anomalies for Finding Hydrocarbon Microseepage in the Petroliferous Regions of the Tatipaka and Pasarlapudi Areas of Krishna Godavari Basin, India” (Rasheed et al.) discloses a method, comprising collecting a plurality of soil samples from an area of interest, preparing the plurality of soil samples such that particle size and moisture content of each soil sample of the plurality of soil samples is normalized, performing, using a spectral instrument, a spectral analysis of each soil extract to detect at least one chemical element and determining a presence of a hydrocarbon microscepage in the arca of interest based, at least in part, on the spectral analysis. The reference, however, fails to prepare an extraction solution comprising an amount of a carboxylic acid, an amount of a chelating agent, and an amount of a strong base; and using the extraction solution, obtaining a soil extract from each soil sample of the plurality of soil samples.
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art disclose various means for testing soil samples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Laura Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights