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 § 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 11-18 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.
Claim 11, lines 1-2 and claim 16, lines 1-2 both recite the phrase “characterized in that it comprises”. The term “it” is a non- descriptive term and is not considered proper language. The terms “it should be changed to the structure that the term “it” represents.
Claims 12-15 and 17-18 depend from claim 11 and likewise are indefinite.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 18 recites "a computer readable storage medium”. MPEP 2106.03 (II) states “machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “could be a computer readable signal medium. When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). The examiner suggests amending claim 18 to recite - - A non transitory computer readable storage medium- - in order to overcome this rejection.
Claims 11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 11 is directed to a method and claim 16 is directed to a system.
As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 11 and 16 recites the limitations of obtaining excitation frequency time-series data and strain time series data, determining a fracture initiation pressure and a fracture initiation orientation formulating a fracture induction scheme, determining an average value of the strain time-series data, selecting a target average value, determining a time corresponding to the target average value, determining an excitation frequency, determining a target water saturation. The limitations of obtaining excitation frequency time-series data and strain time series data, determining a fracture initiation pressure and a fracture initiation orientation formulating a fracture induction scheme, selecting a target average value, determining a time corresponding to the target average value, determining an excitation frequency, determining a target water saturation, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. The limitation of determining an average value of the strain time-series data as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping.
.Thus the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of an obtaining module, a resonance frequency determining module, a fracture initiation pressure and fracture initiation orientation determining module, a hydraulic fracturing module are all computer components that are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As stated above claim 16 recites the limitations the limitation of an obtaining module, a resonance frequency determining module, a fracture initiation pressure and fracture initiation orientation determining module, a hydraulic fracturing module are all computer components that are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015), requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer merely invokes computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Referring to claim 15, the limitation of performing CT scanning amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Seltzer 20210032987 disclose CT scanning fracture samples (see 0079) paragraph has been known since 2019 and as such is well understood routine and conventional. The limitation of performing three dimensional reconstruction as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. Similar to claim 11, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claim 17, the limitations of computer device, memory and processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015), requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer merely invokes computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Similar to claim 11, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Referring to claim 18, while the limitation of computer readable storage medium is directed to non-statutory subject matter even if the limitation where amended to recite “non transitory computer readable storage medium”, this limitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more as this computer component is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015), requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer merely invokes computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Similar to claim 11, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Bunio et al. 20200003036 discloses it is known to use ultrasonic vibration on samples to determining resonant frequencies.
Laboratory Investigation of Fracture Initiation Pressure and Orientation by Medlin et al. discloses determining fracture Initiation Pressure and Orientation.
Liu 11519879 discloses placing strain sensors on samples.
The prior art of record does not teach nor suggest arranging a micro-ultrasonic vibration rod on one perforated end face of the target rock sample, and arranging corresponding micro-resistance strain sensors on the five non-perforated end faces of the target rock sample respectively; injecting a fracturing fluid into the simulated hole in a constant pressure mode after heating the target rock sample to a rock sample temperature; accordingly, the obtaining the excitation frequency time-series data after applying the excitation frequency to the perforated end face of the target rock sample and the strain time-series data of other end faces except the perforated end face according to the simulated hole diameter of the target rock sample comprises: when the simulated hole diameter of the target rock sample is the preset hole diameter, determining whether a stop condition for injecting the fracturing fluid is met;
if yes, activating the micro-ultrasonic vibration rod and gradually increasing the excitation frequency of the micro-ultrasonic vibration rod, obtaining the excitation frequency time-series data, and obtaining the strain time-series data of the five non-perforated end faces by using the micro- resistance strain sensors in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights