Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/047,272

TECHNIQUES FOR EXTRACTION OF VECTORIZED CONTENT OF AN OIL AND GAS PLAY WITHIN AN UNSTRUCTURED FILE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 13, 2020
Examiner
HASTY, NICHOLAS
Art Unit
2141
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Landmark Graphics Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 8m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
178 granted / 348 resolved
-3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 8m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
379
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§103
68.6%
+28.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§112
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 348 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to communications: RCE filed on 2/13/2024. Claims 1-4, 6-21 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 5 was previously canceled. The previous rejection of claims 1-4, 6-21 under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 1-4, 6, 9-13, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanden et al. (US2014/0379317) in view of Leung (“Subsurface Boundary Geometry Modeling: Applying Computational Physics, Computer Vision, and Signal Processing Techniques to Geoscience”) and Le Guern et al. (US11,644,589) and Scott et al. (US7,038,681) and Strebelle et al. (US2006/0041409). In regards to claim 1, Sanden et al. substantially discloses a system comprising: a processing device (Sanden et al. para[0005]); and a memory device comprising instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: receive an unstructured document (Sanden et al. para[0087], receives unstructured documents); define an area of interest of the unstructured document that visually represents geological formation information (Sanden et al. para[0125]-[0126], identifies and extracts geological data); assign: the gross depositional environment and a corresponding facie type of the facies types of the area of interest(Sanden et al. para[0207], GUI controls identifies geostatistical data relating to facies for further processing) to each vectorized polygon in the set of vectorized polygons based on the plurality of document properties from the unstructured document to each vectorized polygon in the set of vectorized polygons (Sanden et al. para[0285], assigns geological properties form document to map); assign a coordinate reference frame to the set of vectorized polygons (Sanden et al. para[0117], assigns reference coordinates); and generate a user-interactive document from the set of vectorized polygons (Sanden et al. para[0162], generates user interactive document). Sanden et al. does not explicitly disclose extract a set of vectorized polygons from the area of interest. However Leung substantially discloses extract a set of vectorized polygons from the area of interest (Leung pg161685 section III.E, extracts vectorized polygons from selected region). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the geological analysis tool of Sanden with the boundary modeling of Leung in order to identify the boundaries between geological formations (Leung pg161681 Section I para5). Sanden et al. does not explicitly disclose assign document coordinates, the document coordinates indicating a set of vectorized polygons in the unstructured document; assign a coordinate reference frame to the set of vectorized polygons by transforming the document coordinate reference frame that indicates real-world locations of the set of vectorized polygons. However Le Guern et al. substantially discloses assign document coordinates, the document coordinates indicating a set of vectorized polygons in the unstructured document (Le Guern et al. col23 ln19-31, analyzes document image to define, using coordinates in 3D space, a surface mesh that utilizes triangles as polygons); assign a geological coordinate reference frame to the set of vectorized polygons by transforming the document coordinates to the geological coordinates reference frame that indicates real-world locations of the set of vectorized polygons (Le Guern et al. col10 ln24-30, assigns location coordinates for a geological environment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the filing date of the invention have combined the geological analysis tool of Sanden with the data interpretation method of Le Guern et al. in order to identify and characterize locations in a subsurface region (Le Guern et al. col1 ln1-48). Sanden et al. does not explicitly disclose identify a plurality of document properties within the area of interest, wherein the plurality of document properties corresponds to a plurality of subsurface formation properties; partition the area of interest into a set of vectorized polygons based on the plurality of document properties, wherein each vectorized polygon in the set of vectorized polygons represents a unique location of a corresponding subsurface formation property of the plurality of subsurface formation properties. However Scott et al. substantially discloses identify a plurality of document properties within the area of interest, wherein the plurality of document properties corresponds to a plurality of subsurface formation properties (Scott et al. col5 ln54 to col6 ln17, identifies document properties (source coordinates) corresponding to subsurface formation properties (geographic features)); partition the area of interest into a set of vectorized polygons based on the plurality of document properties, wherein each vectorized polygon in the set of vectorized polygons represents a unique location of a corresponding subsurface formation property of the plurality of subsurface formation properties (Scott et al. col6 ln18-31, partitions area into polygons representing features and associated with coordinates). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the geological analysis tool of Sanden with the georeferencing system of Scott et al. in order to convert the information contained in a paper map to into a format easier to view and manipulate the underlying data (Scott et al. col5 ln46-53). Sanden et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of subsurface formation properties comprises gross depositional environment and facies types of the area of interest. However Strebelle et al. substantially discloses wherein the plurality of subsurface formation properties comprises gross depositional environment and facies types of the area of interest (Strebelle et al. para[0056], the polygons are representative of the best estimate on that section of geological facies body). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the geological analysis tool of Sanden with the MPS simulations of Strebelle in order to provide information about reservoir architecture and spatial distribution of facies (Strebelle et al. para[0014]) In regards to claim 2, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., and Strebelle et al. discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a display device, wherein the instructions are further executable for causing the processing device to: output the user-interactive document to the display device, wherein the user-interactive document comprises interactive information about each vectorized polygon of the set of vectorized polygons (Sanden et al. para[0254]). In regards to claim 3, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., and Strebelle et al. discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the user-interactive document is displayable on the display device as a component of an interactive geospatially-enabled database platform, and wherein the interactive geospatially-enabled database platform comprises a plurality of additional user-interactive documents generated from a plurality of additional unstructured documents (Sanden et al. para[0148]). In regards to claim 4, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., and Strebelle et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the geological formation information of the area of interest comprises visual indications of a plurality of formation layers (Sanden et al. para[0185]). In regards to claim 6, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., and Strebelle et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable for causing the processing device to: identify the properties from a legend of the unstructured document, wherein the properties comprise formation characteristics (Sanden et al. para[0239]-[0240]). Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1, 4, 6, and 3 respectively. Thus claims 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1, 4, 6, and 3. In regards to claim 11, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., and Strebelle et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein each vectorized polygon of the set of vectorized polygons is extracted from a formation layer of a set of formation layers represented in the area of interest (Sanden et al. para[0206]). Claims 16,17, 19, and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1, 4, 6, and 3 respectively. Thus claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1, 4, 6, and 3. In regards to claim 18, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., and Strebelle et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the image within the unstructured document comprises a set of formation layers, and wherein each vectorized polygon represents a formation layer of the set of formation layers (Sanden et al. para[0206]). In regards to claim 21 Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., and Scott et al. substantially discloses the system of claim 1, wherein assign the properties and the document coordinates from the unstructured document to each vectorized polygon in the set of vectorized polygon in the set of vectorized polygons comprises, for each vectorized polygon in the set of vectorized polygons: Identifying a first characteristic of the vectorized polygon, the first characteristic corresponding to a second characteristic of a geological formation associated with the geological formation information (Le Guern et al. col23 ln25-35); and Assigning the second characteristic to the vectorized polygon (Le Guern et al. col24 ln53-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the filing date of the invention have combined the geological analysis tool of Sanden with the data interpretation method of Le Guern et al. in order to identify and characterize locations in a subsurface region (Le Guern et al. col1 ln1-48). Claim(s) 7-8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanden et al. in view of Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., Strebelle et al. and Nguyen et al. (US2019/0086569). In regards to claim 7, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern al., and Scott et al. and Strebelle et al. discloses the system of claim 1. Sanden et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further executable for causing the processing device to: repair defects corresponding to the set of vectorized polygons, wherein the defects comprise gaps between two or more vectorized polygons of the set of vectorized polygons. However Nguyen et al. substantially discloses wherein the instructions are further executable for causing the processing device to: repair defects corresponding to the set of vectorized polygons, wherein the defects comprise gaps between two or more vectorized polygons of the set of vectorized polygons (Nguyen et al. para[0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the geological analysis tool of Sanden et al. with the seismic survey method of Nguyen et al. in order to identify and correct gaps in survey data (Nguyen et al. para[0016]). In regards to claim 8, Sanden et al. as modified Leung, Le Guern et al., Scott et al., Strebelle et al. and Nguyen et al. substantially discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the defects further comprise area overlap between two or more vectorized polygons of the set of vectorized polygons (Nguyen et al. para[0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the geological analysis tool of Sanden et al. with the seismic survey method of Nguyen et al. in order to identify and correct gaps in survey data (Nguyen et al. para[0016]). Claims 14-15 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 7-8. Thus claims 14-15 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 7-8. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply the current rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS HASTY whose telephone number is (571)270-7775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm. 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571)272-4057. 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. /N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2141 /KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2020
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 11, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 11, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
May 22, 2023
Response Filed
Jun 06, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 04, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 08, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 20, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 29, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 30, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 15, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 13, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12579517
AUTOMATED DESCRIPTION GENERATION FOR JOB POSTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578840
Devices, Methods, and Graphical User Interfaces for Navigating, Displaying, and Editing Media Items with Multiple Display Modes
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561605
USER INTERFACE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12547291
Tree Frog Computer Navigation System for the Hierarchical Visualization of Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12536468
MODEL TRAINING METHOD, SHORT MESSAGE AUDITING MODEL TRAINING METHOD, SHORT MESSAGE AUDITING METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+32.3%)
4y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 348 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month