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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ratcliffe et al (WO 2022/005474 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ratcliffe et al discloses a method comprising: irradiating a rock sample with infrared radiation from at least one radiation source (FTIR – obtaining infra-red absorption spectrum from a sample) (page 14); detecting infrared radiation reflected from the rock sample for two different wavelength bands using a photodetector (emission or absorption signals (intensities) at a plurality of different wavelengths, i.e. spectroscopic, emission or absorption, spectrum) (page 3); and based on a comparison of the detected infrared radiation for the two different wavelength bands, using a processor, determining whether the rock sample comprises carbonate (determining the amount of the or each constituent phase in the rock sample comprises: obtaining the spectroscopic measurement from the rock sample; and determining the amount of the or each constituent phase in the rock sample based on the spectroscopic measurement and a spectroscopic calibration model which defines a relationship between spectroscopic measurements and constituent phase amounts for rock samples) (page 6).
Regarding claim 2, Ratcliffe et al discloses further comprising determining whether the rock sample comprises calcium carbonate (calcite) and calcium magnesium carbonate (dolomite) (page 2).
Regarding claim 15, Ratcliffe et al discloses a system comprising: a processor (100) (page 16); memory (101) accessible to the processor (page 16); and processor-executable instruction (102) stored in memory (page 16) to instruct the system to: irradiate a rock sample (FTIR – obtaining infra-red absorption spectrum from a sample) (page 14); detect infrared radiation reflected from the rock sample for two different wavelength bands using a photodetector (emission or absorption signals (intensities) at a plurality of different wavelengths, i.e. spectroscopic, emission or absorption, spectrum) (page 3); and based on a comparison of the infrared radiation for the two different wavelength bands, determine whether the rock sample comprises carbonate (determining the amount of the or each constituent phase in the rock sample comprises: obtaining the spectroscopic measurement from the rock sample; and determining the amount of the or each constituent phase in the rock sample based on the spectroscopic measurement and a spectroscopic calibration model which defines a relationship between spectroscopic measurements and constituent phase amounts for rock samples) (page 6).
Regarding claim 17, Ratcliffe et al discloses further comprising processor-executable instructions stored in the memory to instruct the system to adjust a platform for the rock sample (page 8).
Regarding claim 18, Ratcliffe et al discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising processor- executable instructions to instruct a computing system (page 7) to: irradiate a rock sample with infrared radiation from at least one radiation source (FTIR – obtaining infra-red absorption spectrum from a sample) (page 14); detect infrared radiation reflected from the rock sample for two different wavelength bands using a photodetector (emission or absorption signals (intensities) at a plurality of different wavelengths, i.e. spectroscopic, emission or absorption, spectrum) (page 3); and based on a comparison of the infrared radiation for the two different wavelength bands, determine whether the rock sample comprises carbonate (determining the amount of the or each constituent phase in the rock sample comprises: obtaining the spectroscopic measurement from the rock sample; and determining the amount of the or each constituent phase in the rock sample based on the spectroscopic measurement and a spectroscopic calibration model which defines a relationship between spectroscopic measurements and constituent phase amounts for rock samples) (page 6).
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(s) 3, 5, 7-13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratcliffe et al (WO 2022/005474 A1) in view of Perkins et al (US 20160273960 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ratcliffe et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described above however, Ratcliffe et al is silent with regards to filter as claimed. Perkins et al discloses an optical computing device with multiple bandpass filters comprising wherein the detected infrared radiation is filtered by a first filter that passes a first wavelength band (306) of the two different wavelength bands and by a second filter that passes a second wavelength band (308) of the two different wavelength bands (paragraph [0055]). Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratcliffe et al of a method comprising: irradiating a rock sample with infrared radiation from at least one radiation source; with Perkins et al of filtering the detected infrared radiation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to isolate distinct wavelength bands where carbonate minerals have a unique optical signature, making it possible to accurately identify them by comparing the two targeted signals.
Regarding claim 5, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein the at least one radiation source comprises at least one LED (204) (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein the photodetector (paragraph [0045]) comprises a detector array paired with individual filters that comprise a first filter (402a) that passes a first wavelength band of the two different wavelength bands and a second filter (402b) that passes a second wavelength band of the two different wavelength bands (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein the detector array comprises individual single pixel detectors (charge coupled device (CCD) detector) (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein the two different wavelength bands comprise a wavelength band for wavelengths including 4200 nm (2381 cm⁻¹) for background measurement and a wavelength band for wavelengths including 4000 nm (2500 cm⁻¹) for determining whether the rock sample comprises carbonate (rock formations, i.e. detect analyte or characteristic whose spectral output generally lies in the optical region of interest (304) encompassing spectral regions between 1.00 mm – 1.75 mm, second wavelength zone (308) extends generally between 2.25 mm – 3.0 mm) (paragraphs [0081]). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to enable two different wavelength bands ranges as claimed supra, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein detecting infrared radiation comprises detecting infrared radiation for more wavelength bands than the two different wavelength bands (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein the two different wavelength bands comprise a wavelength band for wavelengths including 4500 nm (2222 cm⁻¹) for background measurement and a wavelength band for wavelengths including 4000 nm (2500 cm⁻¹), and a wavelength band that includes a wavelength of 3720 cm (2688 cm-1) (rock formations, i.e. detect analyte or characteristic whose spectral output generally lies in the optical region of interest (306) encompassing spectral regions between 1.00 mm – 1.75 mm, second wavelength zone (308) extends generally between 2.25 mm – 3.0 mm) and (third wavelength zone falling within otp8ical region of interest (304) (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0070]). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to enable three different wavelength bands ranges as claimed supra, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein the more than two different wavelength bands comprise: a wavelength band for an interval between 2400-2300 cm⁻¹ (4167-4348 nm) for background measurement; a wavelength band for an interval between 2700-2400 cm⁻¹ (3704-4167 nm) for determining whether the rock sample comprises carbonate; a wavelength band for an interval between 2710-2650 cm⁻¹ (3690-3774 nm) for differentiating between calcite and dolomite in the rock sample; and a wavelength band for an interval between 3800-3600 cm⁻¹ (2632-2778 nm) for determining whether the rock sample comprises clay. (rock formations, i.e. detect analyte or characteristic whose spectral output generally lies in the optical region of interest (306) encompassing spectral regions between 1.00 mm – 1.75 mm, second wavelength zone (308) extends generally between 2.25 mm – 3.0 mm) and (third wavelength zone falling within otp8ical region of interest (304) (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0070]). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to enable three different wavelength bands ranges as claimed supra, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Ratcliffe et al discloses further comprising detecting infrared radiation reflected from the rock sample for another wavelength band to determine whether the rock sample comprises clay (page 2).
Regarding claim 20, Ratcliffe et al in view of Perkins et al discloses wherein computer-readable storage media (paragraph [0075]) further comprising processor-executable instructions to instruct the computing system to receive signals from a photodetector that comprises an array of detectors (charge coupled device (CCD) detector) (paragraph [0045]), wherein each of the detectors detects a different wavelength band of the infrared radiation reflected from the rock sample (paragraph [0059]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratcliffe et al (WO 2022/005474 A1) in view of Pandey et al (CN 114270269 B).
Regarding claim 4, Ratcliffe et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described above however, Ratcliffe et al is silent with regards to a filter wheel as claimed. Pandey et al discloses irradiation and detection device for a measurement device, comprising: an adjustable filter with a filter wheel or a movable filter device (pages 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratcliffe et al of a method comprising: irradiating a rock sample with infrared radiation from at least one radiation source; with Pandey et al of a filter wheel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to sequentially isolate and allow definite infrared wavelength bands to reach photodetector to measure and compare differential reflection.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratcliffe et al (WO 2022/005474 A1) in view of Perkins et al (US 20160273960 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Warren et al (CN 107112255 A).
Regarding claim 6, Ratcliffe et al and Perkins et al disclose all of the limitations of claim 5, as described supra however, Ratcliffe et al and Perkins et al are silent with regards to multiple LEDs as claimed. Warren et al discloses measuring level for radiation reflected form semi-conducting material for measurement material comprising: one or more LEDs wherein the at least one LED comprises a first LED for emitting infrared radiation in a first wavelength band of the two different wavelength bands and a second LED for emitting infrared radiation in a second wavelength band of the two different wavelength bands. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratcliffe et al of a method comprising: irradiating a rock sample with infrared radiation from at least one radiation source; with Warren et al multiple LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable differential absorption or reflectance measurement targeted at unique spectral signature of carbonate minerals.
Claim(s), 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratcliffe et al (WO 2022/005474 A1) in view of Warren et al (CN 107112255 A).
Regarding claims 14, 19, Ratcliffe et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 18, as described above however, Ratcliffe et al is silent with regards to an optical chopper as claimed. Warren et al discloses measuring level for radiation reflected form semi-conducting material for measurement material comprising: processor-executable instructions to instruct a computing system (48) to rotate an optical chopper (26) to modulate the infrared radiation (See Fig. 4 and pages 11-12). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratcliffe et al of a method comprising: irradiating a rock sample with infrared radiation from at least one radiation source; with Warren et al of a rotating chopper. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to extract weak reflection signals.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratcliffe et al (WO 2022/005474 A1) in view of Espitalie et al (US 5811308 A).
Regarding claim 16, Ratcliffe et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 15, as described above however, Ratcliffe et al is silent with regards to display as claimed. Espitalie et al discloses a method for determining petroleum characteristics of geologic sediments comprising: a display for rendering an image of rock sample and for rendering one or more portions of an infrared spectrum of the rock sample (carbonate) (col. 4, lines 17-21). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ratcliffe et al of a method comprising: irradiating a rock sample with infrared radiation from at least one radiation source; with Espitalie et al of a display. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to verify the physical sample and inspect the underlying infrared data used to detect carbonate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hovis et al (“Infrared Spectral Reflectance of Some Common Minerals”) discloses infrared reflectance spectra of minerals of the carbonate, sulfate, nitrate, and silicate families exhibit spectral absorption band patterns that can be detected in reflection from surface minerals. These features could perhaps be used to identify such minerals from infrared reflection spectra of the moon and some planets; they might also be a source of confusion in interpretation of atmospheric spectra.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights