This Office action is in response to communication filed on 5/22/2026.
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 Amendments
1. Applicant’s amendments filed 5/22/2026 to the claims are entered. In this amendment:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-3 and 5-22 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below:
A. Regarding the 101 rejection:
Applicants argues in step 2A, prong One “The step of collecting the magnetic susceptibility data is not a mental process because it includes steps which are not practically performable in the human mind, such as obtaining physical samples of geological hydrogen source rock and measuring the magnetic susceptibility of the physical samples. "Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." See MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A) further referring to SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For example, these limitations do not recite or set forth any of the standard examples of mental processes presented in MPEP 2106.04(a)(III), such as an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. Because the claims do not recite a judicial exception, the inquiry should end at this step, and the claims recite eligible subject matter.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations in claim 1 identifying a magnetic anomaly in the magnetic susceptibility data…; tying the magnetic susceptibility data to the geophysical survey data to create a magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set; mapping the target zone based on the magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set to improve exploration for geologic hydrogen; and generating, based on the identification identifying of the magnetic anomaly, a drilling plan for accessing the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock” fall into the grouping of mental process. The above limitations are based on “observations, evaluations, judgements, opinions”, not just pen and papers. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(III).
Applicant further argues “the claims are eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two, because the claims represent a clear improvement to the technologies for and the technical field of geologic hydrogen exploration. For example, the claimed method improves geologic hydrogen exploration by identifying magnetic anomalies in magnetic susceptibility data which suggest "the geological hydrogen source rock having a potential of hydrogen production without injection of a reactant or a potential of hydrogen accumulation See Claim 1. The Specification explains that "these measurements may enable the identification of geologic settings favorable for hydrogen generation or accumulation and hence can be used to identify exploration targets for natural hydrogen," which may not be accomplished with conventional methods of subsurface resource identification for hydrogen exploration. See Specification, paragraph [0089]. As such, the claims are directed to an improvement in the technologies for and the technical field of geologic hydrogen exploration and thereby integrate any allegedly recited abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitations in claim 1 “collecting magnetic susceptibility data including obtaining a plurality of geological samples of geological hydrogen source rock within the region and measuring the magnetic susceptibility of each geological sample using a laboratory or field-based instrument on the geological sample” are extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data being manipulated) recited at high-level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In step 2B, The Office Action alleges the additional elements do not amount to more than "mere computer implementation using generic computer elements." See Office Action, page 7. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The record fails to show any of the recited elements of independent claim 1 to be conventional for use in the technical field of natural hydrogen exploration. For example, it is not well-understood, conventional, or routine to perform a two-step process of collecting magnetic susceptibility data that includes "obtaining a plurality of geological samples of geological hydrogen source rock within the region, each geologic sample taken from one subsurface location of the plurality of subsurface locations," and "measuring the magnetic susceptibility of each geological sample using a laboratory or field-based instrument on the geological sample, wherein the magnetic susceptibility is a value representing an extent of magnetization of the geologic sample in relation to an applied magnetic field," when exploring for geologic hydrogen as recited by amended independent claim 1. Accordingly, the combinations of features recited in the claims amount to "significantly more" than any allegedly recited judicial exception, and the claims are eligible at Step 2B.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not include additional limitations that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering, “collecting, obtaining, receiving data”) added to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., a method for accessing a target zone of geological hydrogen source rock at a region for improved exploration of geologic hydrogen), see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Please refer to the 101 rejection below for further details regarding eligibility
analysis.
Applicant’s argument regarding prior art rejection has been fully considered but it is moot in view of new grounds rejection as necessitated by amendments.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6: missing the word “and” or “or” before the word “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3 and 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the
claim is directed to a process (claim 1), which is statutory category.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is method (process) is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
Claim 1 “collecting magnetic susceptibility data from a plurality of subsurface locations within the geological hydrogen source rock in the region, wherein the plurality of subsurface locations includes subsurface locations in igneous rock, metamorphic rock, or mafic mineral-rich or iron-rich sedimentary rock within the region, wherein the collecting of the magnetic susceptibility data comprises: obtaining a plurality of geological samples of geological hydrogen source rock within the region, each geologic sample taken from one subsurface location of the plurality of subsurface locations, and measuring the magnetic susceptibility of each geological sample using a laboratory or field-based instrument on the geological sample, wherein the magnetic susceptibility is a value representing an extent of magnetization of the geologic sample in relation to an applied magnetic field; identifying a magnetic anomaly in the magnetic susceptibility data, wherein the magnetic anomaly is at a subsurface location above, below or within the igneous rock, the metamorphic rock, or the mafic mineral-rich or the iron-rich sedimentary rock, wherein the igneous rock, the metamorphic rock, or the mafic mineral-rich or the iron-rich sedimentary rock includes the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock having a potential of hydrogen production without injection of a reactant or a potential of hydrogen accumulation; receiving geophysical survey data of the region, wherein the geophysical survey data comprises geophysical data collected above ground; tying the magnetic susceptibility data to the geophysical survey data to create a magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set; mapping the target zone based on the magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set to improve exploration for geologic hydrogen; and generating, based on the identification identifying of the magnetic anomaly, a drilling plan for accessing the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock” fall into the grouping of mental process (based on an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)).
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (see limitations in non-Italic font under step 2A - prong 1 above, pasted below):
“A method for accessing a target zone of geological hydrogen source rock at a region for improved exploration of geologic hydrogen, the method comprising: (generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) collecting magnetic susceptibility data from a plurality of subsurface locations within the geological hydrogen source rock in the region, wherein the plurality of subsurface locations includes subsurface locations in igneous rock, metamorphic rock, or mafic mineral-rich or iron-rich sedimentary rock within the region, wherein the collecting of the magnetic susceptibility data comprises: obtaining a plurality of geological samples of geological hydrogen source rock within the region, each geologic sample taken from one subsurface location of the plurality of subsurface locations, and measuring the magnetic susceptibility of each geological sample using a laboratory or field-based instrument on the geological sample, wherein the magnetic susceptibility is a value representing an extent of magnetization of the geologic sample in relation to an applied magnetic field (add extra-solution activities using elements recited at a high level of generality, i.e., mere data collection, such as collecting data, obtaining data, measuring data, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the above additional limitations in claim 1, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering, collecting, obtaining, measuring data), adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., a method for accessing a target zone of geological hydrogen source rock at a region for improved exploration of geologic hydrogen.
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-22 that are directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (claims 7-12, 16, 20) that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts and/or mental process.
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refers to extra-solution activity and at a high level of generality, i.e., collecting, obtaining, measuring (claims 2-3, 5-6, 13-15, 17-19, 21-22), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over CN111045087A of Wang et al., hereinafter Wang in view of US 2024/0427052 of Albertz et al. “Albertz” (of record) and US patent 4646025 of Martin et al., hereinafter Martin (of record).
As per Claim 1, Wang teaches a method for accessing a target zone of geological hydrogen source rock at a region ( the target region for “crystalline-white-granite type uranium deposit” is considered a geological hydrogen source rock, see p.4, lines 32-34 ), the method comprising:
collecting magnetic susceptibility data from a plurality of subsurface locations within the geological hydrogen source rock in the region ( acquired magnetic susceptibility of measuring points is considered data collected from multiple subsurface locations, see p.7 para 1 ),
wherein the plurality of subsurface locations includes subsurface locations in igneous rock, metamorphic rock, or mafic mineral-rich or iron-rich sedimentary rock within the region ( crystalline-white-granite type uranium deposit is considered an igneous rock ), wherein the collecting of the magnetic susceptibility data comprises:
obtaining a plurality of geological samples of geological hydrogen source rock
within the region ( collecting different types of typical rock samples in the area, see p.7, paras 1-2 ), each geologic sample taken from one subsurface location of the plurality of subsurface locations ( the magnetic susceptibility of the measured point position was collected, see p.4 line 39-49 ), and
measuring the magnetic susceptibility of each geological sample using a laboratory or field-based instrument on the geological sample ( acquired magnetic susceptibility using a GSM-19T proton magnetometer, p.4, lines 49-50 ).
Wang does not teach wherein the magnetic susceptibility is a value representing an extent of magnetization of the geologic sample in relation to an applied magnetic field; identifying a magnetic anomaly in the magnetic susceptibility data, wherein the magnetic anomaly is at a subsurface location above, below or within the igneous rock, the metamorphic rock, or the mafic mineral-rich or the iron-rich sedimentary rock, wherein the igneous rock, the metamorphic rock, or the mafic mineral-rich or the iron-rich sedimentary rock includes the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock having a potential of hydrogen production without injection of a reactant or a potential of hydrogen accumulation; receiving geophysical survey data of the region, wherein the geophysical survey data comprises geophysical data collected above ground; tying the magnetic susceptibility data to the geophysical survey data to create a magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set; mapping the target zone based on the magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set to improve exploration for geologic hydrogen; and
generating, based on the identification identifying of the magnetic anomaly, a drilling plan for accessing the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock.
Albertz teaches identifying a magnetic anomaly the magnetic susceptibility data wherein the a magnetic anomaly is at a subsurface location above, below or within the igneous rock, the metamorphic rock, or the mafic mineral- or the iron-rich sedimentary rock, the igneous rock, the metamorphic rock, or the mafic mineral- or the iron-rich sedimentary rock ( identify surface/subsurface EM anomaly, see [0040]-[0045]. It is noted crystalline rock is an igneous rock, see [0033] ) includes the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock having a potential of hydrogen production without injection of a reactant or a potential of hydrogen accumulation ( Fig 9 at steps 902, 916, 924, [0047]-[0048], [0067], [0012] - detect and identify natural hydrogen seepages. It is noted “Hydrogen seepages correspond to target rock, are generated in the crust by water/rock interactions);
receiving geophysical survey data of the region ( Fig 9 step 914, [0080] – collected geophysical data ), wherein the geophysical survey data comprises geophysical data collected above ground (earth’s crust made up igneous rock [0025], porous rock {0052], both are considered igneous rock and found above ground); and
tying the magnetic susceptibility data to the geophysical survey data to create a magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set ( i.e., four geologic settings: ophiolites, serpentinized mantle, crystalline, and mid-ocean ridges [0020], considered “tying magnetic susceptibility meaning integrating with magnetic susceptibility data” is part of the process of creating a magnetic susceptibility geophysical data set ); and
mapping the target zone based on the magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set to improve exploration for geologic hydrogen ( the equipped electromagnetic surveying equipment can map the geo-electrical properties of near-surface of the region, i.e., from 0-100 meters, and changes in measured EM field in an area caused by magnetic susceptibility of surface/subsurface materials changes [0043], i.e., map the geophysical data 606 to the subsurface geological geometries modeled by reflection seismic data 604 [0052]. Further Fig 8 shows the computer processes EM survey data 402, reflection seismic data 604, geophysical data 606, and finally provide hydrogen exploration reports 804 meaning to improve or help in exploration hydrogen [0091]); and
generating, based on the identification of the magnetic anomaly, a drilling plan for
accessing the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock ( areas identified by the map analysis can be targeted for further economic analysis and exploratory drilling, see [0021], [0074], Fig 9, steps 930-932 ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wang identifying, receiving tying, and generating magnetic susceptibility data as taught by Albertz that would
identify areas of interest for maximum hydrogen capture from active mid ocean ridges and/or rifting continents, thereby being applicable to both onshore and offshore hydrogen exploration (Albertz, [0021]).
Wang in view of Albertz does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic susceptibility is a value representing an extent of magnetization of the geologic sample in relation to an applied magnetic field.
Martin teaches the magnetic susceptibility is a value representing an extent of magnetization of the geologic sample in relation to an applied magnetic field ( the magnetization induced by the earth's magnetic field in the rocks and residual magnetization of the rocks, see col 3 lines 48-50. It is noted both induced magnetization and residual (remnant) magnetization represent the total extent of a geologic sample's magnetization in relation to an applied magnetic field ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang and Albertz having the magnetic susceptibility representing an extent of magnetization of the rock sample as taught by Martin that would facilitate to locate the reversals of the earth’s magnetic field and determine the residual fossil magnetization of rocks (Martin, col 1 lines 19-25).
As per Claim 2, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of collecting magnetic susceptibility data, measuring magnetic susceptibility at the plurality of subsurface locations.
Wang and Albertz do not teach using a vibrating sample magnetometer, a superconducting quantum interference device magnetometer, a magnetic property measurement system, an AC susceptometer, a Kappabridge, a Faraday balance, a Gouy balance, an alternating gradient magnetometer, or a wireline magnetic susceptibility tool.
Martin teaches using an alternating gradient magnetometer (Abstract, Col 1 lines 43-50- magnetometer arranged as a gradiometer. It is noted gradient magnetometer same as gradiometer), or a wireline magnetic susceptibility tool (See Title- magnetic susceptibility probe, Col 2 lines 45-46 – an apparatus for measuring magnetic susceptibility. It is noted magnetic susceptibility probe/tool is a wireline logging tool).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang and Albertz using an alternating gradiometer and/or magnetic susceptibility tool as taught by Martin that would facilitate to measure in a well hole and determine the residual fossil magnetization of rocks (Martin, col 1 lines 7-10).
As per Claim 3, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of collecting.
Wang and Albertz do not explicitly teach measuring the magnetic susceptibility along a depth of the well or borehole.
Martin teaches measuring the magnetic susceptibility along a depth of the well or borehole (Col 1 lines 28-60 - the probe moves along the well hole, continues with the depth and measures magnetic susceptibility of the rocks. Col 6 lines 33-52 – i.e., along axes X,Y,Z, the magnetization J induced in the rock).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang and Albertz measuring magnetic susceptibility data along a depth of well hole as taught by Martin that would facilitate to measure in a well hole and determine the residual fossil magnetization of rocks (Martin, col 1 lines 7-10).
As per Claim 5, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang does not teach wherein the geophysical survey data comprises regional magnetic survey data collected by a ground-based magnetic method, a sea-based magnetic method, or an airborne magnetic method.
Albertz teaches a sea-based magnetic method ( offshore hydrogen exploration, see [0021] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wang having a method of collecting data in the sea-based magnetic as taught by Albertz that would identify areas of interest for maximum hydrogen capture from active mid ocean ridges and/or rifting continents, thereby being applicable to both onshore and offshore hydrogen exploration (Albertz, [0021]).
As per Claim 6, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 5.
Wang further teaches the magnetic survey using one or more of a scalar magnetic survey magnetometer ( a GSM-19T proton magnetometer considered a scalar, p.4 line 11 ), a vector magnetometer, or a magnetic gradiometer.
As per Claim 10, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches identifying lithologic intervals using the magnetic susceptibility ( collecting typical rock samples with different lithologies to test the magnetic susceptibility, see Abstract. As it is known “lithologic intervals” are directly related to magnetic susceptibility).
As per Claim 11, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches determining the mineral composition of each geological sample ( the mineralization of the invisible-Wei crystalline-white-granite type uranium deposit considered “mineral composition”, see p.4 line 34 ).
As per Claim 12, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches differentiating rock types (analyze different types of rocks, see p.3 last line. It is noted “analyzing rock types” considered part of differentiating them).
As per Claim 14, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the geophysical survey data comprises one or more of mineralogical data, magnetic field data, magnetic field gradient data, gravitational data, gravitational gradient data, spatially resolved well data, wireline data, wireline instrumentation data, wireline density data, acoustic impedance data, seismic data ( rock type mineralization is considered mineralogical data, see back ground section ).
As per Claim 15, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 14.
Wang further teaches wherein the geophysical survey data comprises airborne gravity or gravity gradiometers, airborne gravity and magnetics, ground-based gravity and magnetics, or sea-based gravity and magnetics, or electromagnetic surveys integrated with seismic reflection data ( audio geodetic electromagnetic sounding data
reflecting the apparent resistivity is considered electromagnetic surveys integrated with seismic reflection data, see p.4 lines 23-25. It is noted audio geodetic electromagnetic sounding data is commonly known as audio-magnetotelluric (AMT) sounding data, explicitly categorized as an electromagnetic survey technique ).
As per Claim 16, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 15.
Wang does not explicitly teach identifying lithological zones corresponding to a target zone of potential hydrogen production or hydrogen accumulation.
Albertz teaches identifying lithological zones corresponding to a target zone of potential hydrogen production or hydrogen accumulation ( the subsurface characterization can identify the geochemical, biological, and/or geomechanical state of the subsurface area to assess the impact on natural hydrogen that may be produced, considered potential hydrogen production or hydrogen accumulation of the above state(s), see [0053] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wang to identify the geochemical, biological, and/or geomechanical state of the subsurface as taught by Albertz that would identify areas of interest for maximum hydrogen capture from active mid ocean ridges and/or rifting continents, thereby being applicable to both onshore and offshore hydrogen exploration (Albertz, [0021]).
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang in view of Albertz and Martin and further US 2011/0284314 of Oraby (of record).
As per Claim 13, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach comprising measuring a wireline density at a location from which the geological sample was taken.
Oraby teaches measuring a wireline density at a location from which the geological sample was taken (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz and Martin to measuring density as taught by Oraby that would obtain the desired measurements, i.e., density via a wireline logging while drilling tool (Oraby, [0018]).
9. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang in view of Albertz, Martin and further ICF of Yan et al “Yan”, 2022 (of record).
As per Claim 17, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target zone is capable of producing a hydrogen gas product, see Albertz [0038].
The combination does not teach exhibiting a carbon intensity score less than 3.0 kg CO2eq/kg H2.
Yan teaches exhibiting a hydrogen gas product exhibiting carbon intensity score less than 3.0 kg CO2eq/kg H2 (page 1: last 6 lines – clean hydrogen producer within a region less than 2 KgCO2eq/Kg H2 which is less than 3 KgCO2eq/Kg H2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz, Martin, and Yan to determine whether a clean hydrogen product in the region.
As per Claim 18, Wang in view of Albertz, Martin and Yan teaches the method of claim 17.
Yan further teaches the hydrogen gas product exhibits a carbon intensity score less than 1.5 kg CO2eq/kg H2 (page 3: last 3 lines – increasing the carbon intensity of gray hydrogen production by 1.4 Kg COeq/Kg H2 which is less than 1.5 Kg CO2eq/Kg H2. It is noted "Gray hydrogen" refers to hydrogen produced from natural gas “fossil fuels” using a process called steam methane reforming “SMR”, which results in significant carbon dioxide emissions as the greenhouse gases are not captured during production making it considered a highly carbon-intensive method of hydrogen generation ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz, Martin, and Yan to determine whether a gray house hydrogen (i.e., natural gas “fossil fuels) product based on the carbon intensity score.
As per Claim 19, Wang in view of Albertz, Martin and Yan teaches the method of claim 18.
Yan further teaches wherein the hydrogen gas product exhibits a carbon intensity score of less than 0.45 kg CO2eq/kg H2. (page 2: last 6 lines –GHG emissions of hydrogen production carbon intensity must be lower than 0.45 KgCO2eq/Kg H2. It is noted the greenhouse gas "GHG" emission from hydrogen production significantly depends on the method used to produce it, “green hydrogen” produced using renewable electricity source used ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz, Martin, and Yan to determine whether a greenhouse hydrogen product (i.e. natural gas “fossil fuels) based on the carbon intensity score.
10. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang in view of Albertz, Martin and further US 2015/0193691 of Silversides et al., hereinafter Silversides.
As per Claim 7, Wang in view of Albertz and Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach comprising generating, based on the magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set, a map of the region using a statistical model.
Silversides teaches generating, based on the magnetic susceptibility-geophysical data set, a map of the region using a statistical model (subsurface geology is considered natural geologic hydrogen source rock having magnetic susceptibility, see [0097]. Self-organized mapping is a neural network used to process geophysical data into clusters to predict rock type is considered unsupervised statistical model that can generate geologic maps, see [0098], Abstract ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz and Martin to generating a map of the region using a statistical model as taught by Silversides that would facilitate a visualization of prediction maps to determine the locations of the iron ore for mining operations can be planned and executed accordingly (Silversides, [0078]).
As per Claim 20, Wang in view of Albertz, Martin teaches the method of claim 1, the combination does not teach further comprising:
training, using the magnetic susceptibility data from the plurality of subsurface locations and the geophysical survey data, a statistical model to generate a geologic map of the region, wherein the geologic map of the region includes the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock, wherein the geologic map of the region includes above-ground characteristics or subsurface characteristics; and identifying, using the statistical model, a further region including a target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock having a potential for hydrogen production or a potential for hydrogen accumulation, wherein the further region exhibits the above-ground characteristics or the subsurface characteristics corresponding to the above-ground characteristics or subsurface characteristics of the geologic map of the region.
Silversides teaches training, using the magnetic susceptibility data from the plurality of subsurface locations ( subsurface geology [0097] considered natural geologic hydrogen source rock having magnetic susceptibility ) and the geophysical survey data ( lithology logs, electric logs are a standard and vital component of borehole geophysical survey data, see [0074] ), a statistical model to generate a geologic map of the region ( Self-organized mapping is a neural network used to process geophysical data into clusters to predict rock type is considered unsupervised statistical model that can generate geologic maps, see [0098], Abstract ), wherein the geologic map of the region includes the target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock and wherein the geologic map of the region includes above-ground characteristics or subsurface characteristics ( Fig 1 shows a geologic map including weathered rock “above ground” and iron ore “underground”, considered geological hydrogen source rock [0091] ); and
identifying, using the statistical model, a further region including a target zone of the geological hydrogen source rock having a potential for hydrogen production or a potential for hydrogen accumulation ( Fig 1 shows identifying geologic map, i.e., iron ore in different drill holes, see [0076], i.e., new locations [0104], considered a potential for geologic hydrogen production ), wherein the further region exhibits the above-ground characteristics or the subsurface characteristics corresponding to the above-ground characteristics or subsurface characteristics of the geologic map of the region ( as addressed above in Fig 1, a geologic map including weathered rock “above ground” and iron ore “underground”, considered geological hydrogen source rock, see [0091] ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz and Martin having a train using a statistic model to generate a logical map as taught by Silversides that would facilitate a visualization of prediction maps to determine the locations of the iron ore for mining operations can be planned and executed accordingly (Silversides, [0078]).
11. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang in view of Albertz, Martin, Silversides, and further “Application of K-means algorithm to Werner deconvolution solutions for depth and image estimations, November 2022” of Eshimiakhe et al “Eshimiakhe” (of record).
As per Claim 8, Wang in view of Albertz, Martin and Silversides teaches the method of claim 7.
The combination does not teach wherein the statistical model comprises a Werner deconvolution model.
Eshimiakhe teaches the statistical model comprises a Werner deconvolution model ( Figs 8-9 show “statistic model” includes Werner deconvolution using K-means clustering algorithm, see section 2, 2.1. and 3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz, Martin, and Silversides to implement Werner deconvolution model as taught by Eshimiakhe that would analyze solutions for 2D semiautomated inversion methods to improve the results, predict and reveal the true number of geologic bodies (Eshimiakhe, p.2/right column and Conclusion section).
As per Claim 9, Wang in view of Albertz, Martin, Silversides, and Eshimiakhe teaches the method of claim 8.
Eshimiakhe further teaches wherein the Werner deconvolution modeling is one of inverse modeling or forward modeling (p.10 – Using machine learning before geophysical inversion allows information from a greater variety of data sources to be used to improve detail in 2D Werner deconvolution mapping. See also Conclusion and p.1/right column).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz, Martin, and Silversides to implement Werner deconvolution model as inversion model as taught by Eshimiakhe that would analyze solutions for 2D semiautomated inversion methods as Werner deconvolution to improve the results, predict and reveal the true number of geologic bodies (Eshimiakhe, p.2/right column and Conclusion section).
12. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang in view of Albertz, Martin and further CN118642199B of Qiang (of record).
As per Claim 21, Wang in view of Albertz, Martin teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the geological hydrogen source rock of the target zone has a magnetic susceptibility greater than 0.0001.
Qiang teaches the geological hydrogen source rock of the target zone has a magnetic susceptibility greater than 0.0001 (the low magnetic susceptibility is 1000-10000 SI 10ˉ⁶ which is greater than 0.0001, see page 6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz and Martin having a low magnetic susceptibility greater than 0.0001 as taught by Qiang that would provide a high magnetic susceptibility such as one greater than 0.0001 that indicates a material that is easily magnetized and strongly interacts with magnetic fields.
As per Claim 22, Wang in view of Albertz, Martin and Qiang teaches the method of claim 21.
Qiang further teaches wherein the geological hydrogen source rock of the target zone has a magnetic susceptibility greater than 0.0045 (magnetic susceptibility is 1000-10000 SI 10ˉ⁶ which is greater than 0.0045, see page 6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Albertz and Martin having a low magnetic susceptibility greater than 0.0001 as taught by Qiang that would provide a high magnetic susceptibility such as one greater than 0.0045 that indicates a material that is easily magnetized and strongly interacts with magnetic fields.
Conclusion
13. 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 extension fee 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM-6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights