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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/27/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 8-11 of the remark filed on 5/27/2026 that "…
Applicant respectfully submits that, even under broadest reasonable interpretation, amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 neither explicitly nor implicitly refer to any mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas/equations, or mathematical calculations. In contrast, amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 generally recite …
Applicant submits that none of the recited limitations of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 refer, explicitly or implicitly, to mathematical concepts. While amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 do refer to "training data," Applicant notes that even a broad interpretation of this claim element does not amount to referral to mathematical concepts. … Thus, even if amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are interpreted, arguendo, as implicitly referring to mathematical concepts, such reference would at best amount to mere involvement of the alleged judicial exception. … At least because the currently pending independent claims, at most, merely involve any alleged mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 do not recite a judicial exception as outlined in Step 2A, Prong 1 of the multi-step test for evaluating the eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “determining a value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels to identify one or more pixels of the first set of pixels associated with invalid image data”; “based at least on the value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels, generating one or more image masks corresponding to the one or more pixels of invalid image data”; “using a model to produce a modeled image based on the one or more image masks and training data”; and “reconstructing the image based on the modeled image and the one or more image masks by replacing the invalid image data at the one or more pixels of the first set of pixels with the respective modeled image data associated with one or more corresponding pixels of the second set of pixels” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The applicant continue to argue on pages 10-11 of the remark filed that “… Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's categorization of the limitation "analyzing the reconstructed image to identify geological features of the rock formation" as being reciting a mental process. See Office Action, p. 8. However, to expedite prosecution, Applicant hereby amends independent claims 1, 9, and 15 to remove this limitations from the claims. Applicant further submits that the remaining limitations as currently recited cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper because "the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, the human mind is not equipped to obtain an image comprising a first set of pixels each associated with respective image data, determine a value of the respective image data to identify one or more pixels associated with invalid image data, generate one or more image masks corresponding to the one or more pixels of invalid image data, use a model to produce a modeled image comprising a second set of pixels each associated with respective modeled image data, and reconstruct the image by replacing the invalid image data with the modeled image data at the pixel level, as generally recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15. Applicant respectfully submits that such limitations cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper and, therefore, cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting mental processes. …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The step of “analyzing the reconstructed image to identify geological features of the rock formation” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. A human mind can observe and evaluate the reconstructed image and identify geological features of the rock formation, and make determination, judgment and have opinion about identified geological features of the rock formation.
Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of claims 1-20 are proper.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“determine a value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels to identify one or more pixels of the first set of pixels associated with invalid image data” in lines 9-11 should read as “determine a value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels to identify one or more pixels of the first set of pixels associated with invalid image data;”
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“determine a value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels to identify one or more pixels of the first set of pixels associated with invalid image data” in lines 7-9 should read as “determine a value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels to identify one or more pixels of the first set of pixels associated with invalid image data;”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
As to Claim 1, the claim recites “A computer-implemented method of image gap-filling, the method comprising:
obtaining, via an imaging tool disposed within a borehole drilled into a rock formation, an image comprising a first set of pixels, wherein each pixel of the first set of pixels is associated with respective image data of the rock formation;
determining a value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels to identify one or more pixels of the first set of pixels associated with invalid image data;
based at least on the value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels, generating one or more image masks corresponding to the one or more pixels of invalid image data;
using a model to produce a modeled image based on the one or more image masks and training data, wherein the modeled image comprises a second set of pixels each of which is associated with respective modeled image data and corresponds to a respective pixel from the first set of pixels, wherein the training data comprises irregular patterns of missing data due to physical irregularities of the borehole resulting in insufficient measuring capabilities of the image tool; and
reconstructing, via the model, the image based on the modeled image and the one or more image masks by replacing the invalid image data at the one or more pixels of the first set of pixels with the respective modeled image data associated with one or more corresponding pixels of the second set of pixels.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by 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. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claims that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
obtaining, via an imaging tool disposed within a borehole drilled into a rock formation, an image comprising a first set of pixels, wherein each pixel of the first set of pixels is associated with respective image data of the rock formation; a model; wherein the modeled image comprises a second set of pixels each of which is associated with respective modeled image data and corresponds to a respective pixel from the first set of pixels, wherein the training data comprises irregular patterns of missing data due to physical irregularities of the borehole resulting in insufficient measuring capabilities of the image tool.
The additional elements “obtaining, via an imaging tool disposed within a borehole drilled into a rock formation, an image comprising a first set of pixels, wherein each pixel of the first set of pixels is associated with respective image data of the rock formation”; “a model”; “wherein the modeled image comprises a second set of pixels each of which is associated with respective modeled image data and corresponds to a respective pixel from the first set of pixels”; and “wherein the training data comprises irregular patterns of missing data due to physical irregularities of the borehole resulting in insufficient measuring capabilities of the image tool” are recited in generality and not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic computer and one or more electrodes or memory are generally recited and therefore, not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, obtaining, via an imaging tool disposed within a borehole drilled into a rock formation, an image comprising a first set of pixels is disclosed by
“Nguyen WO 2019191476A1”, [0001], [0014], [0018], [0022], [0025], [0043], [0056], [0064]); and “Yang US 20170178313”, [0007], [0023], [0024]; [0025], [0027], [0029], [0054].
For example, the modeled image comprises a second set of pixels each of which is associated with respective modeled image data and corresponds to a respective pixel from the first set of pixels is disclosed by “Grigoriev US 20210334935”, [0018], [0021], [0081], FIG. 2, [0134], Claim 12; and “Santo US 20200265615”, [0006], [0007], [0037], [0038], [0040].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 15 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Nguyen WO 2019191476A1”, “Iwanicki US 20030164706”, “Grigoriev US 20210334935”, “Mulchandani US 20210125312”, “Hurst US 20050206890”, “Parker US 20160032717”, “Yang US 20170178313”, “Donderici US 20170160422”, “Sungkorn US 2020022517”, and “Santo US 20200265615”.
As to claims 1, 9, and 15, Nguyen teaches at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor having instructions stored therein, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform functions ([0042], [0043], [0046]) including functions to:
obtaining, via an imaging tool disposed within a borehole drilled into a rock formation, an image comprising a first set of pixels, wherein each pixel of the first set of pixels is associated with respective image data of the rock formation (Nguyen, [0001], [0014], [0018], [0022], [0025], [0043], [0056], [0064]);
determine a value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels to identify one or more pixels of the first set of pixels associated with invalid image data (Nguyen, Abstract, [0015], [0017], [0018], [0031], [0040], [0041]);
reconstructing, via the model, the image based on the modeled image and the one or more image masks (Nguyen, [0030], FIG. 4; FIG. 6; [0034]; FIG. 9, [0041], [0065], [0068]).
Grigoriev discloses based at least on the value of the respective image data associated with each pixel of the first set of pixels, generating one or more image masks corresponding to the one or more pixels of invalid image data (Grigoriev, Abstract, [0019], [0057], [0081], [0115], [0140], [0143]);
using a model to produce a modeled image based on the one or more image masks and training data, wherein the modeled image comprises a second set of pixels each of which is associated with respective modeled image data and corresponds to a respective pixel from the first set of pixels (Grigoriev, [0018], [0021], [0081], FIG. 2, [0134], Claim 12),
reconstructing, via the model, the image based on the modeled image and the one or more image masks by replacing the invalid image data at the one or more pixels of the first set of pixels with the respective modeled image data associated with one or more corresponding pixels of the second set of pixels (Grigoriev, [0021], [0035], [0078], [0081], [0115], [0125], FIG. 2, [0134]).
Mulchandani teaches wherein training data comprises irregular patterns of missing data (Mulchandani, [0018], [0034], FIG. 4, [0068]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the training data comprises irregular patterns of missing data due to physical irregularities of the borehole resulting in insufficient measuring capabilities of the image tool” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 9, and 15.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights