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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 2/13/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/13/2026 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 8-10 of the remark filed on 2/13/2026 that " … The Applicant argues that claims 1-20 should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, the claims do not recite an abstract idea - mental process, but rather merely incorporate one because none of the recited limitations are practical or possible for a human to achieve. … Thus, for all the reasons put forth above in view of the MPEP and the applied memorandum, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are eligible subject matter. There is no recitation of a judicial exception in any of the independent claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “analyzing the obtained image to identify gaps of missing image data”; “using a model to produce modeled image data for filling in the missing image data in the gaps identified in the image, based on the one or more generated image masks and training data”; and “reconstructing the image by filling the gaps of missing image data with the modeled image data produced by the machine learning model” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. 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. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remark filed that “… Further, to assist Examiners and Applicants, the memorandum cites examples including Examples 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. … Specifically, example 37, claim 2 recites: … As such, the determining limitation is found to not be a recitation of an abstract idea because it cannot be performed in the human mind. … .”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The claims in Example 37 are dissimilar to the instant claims. In Example 37, a processor determines the amount of use of each icon and tracks how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time; and
automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use; and thus, the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. However, in the instant claims, the computing device analyzing the obtained image to identify gaps of missing image data; and part of a server system analyzes the reconstructed image to identify geological features of the rock formation, but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
The applicant argues on page 9 of the remark filed that “Example 30 shows an acceptable Step 2A Prong I eligibility analysis on several claim limitations.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. In Example 30, Claim 1 is eligible because the claim is not directed to any judicial exception. Claim 2 is ineligible because step c of claim 2 could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 3 is eligible because the correlation and critical thinking step (step c) is a law of nature and/or an abstract idea, and it recites additional limitations that when considered as a combination are unconventional steps that are more than a mere instruction to “apply” the exception using well-understood, routine or conventional techniques in the field. Claim 4 is eligible because the correlation and critical thinking step (step c) is a law of nature and/or an abstract idea, and it recites additional limitations that when considered as a combination are unconventional steps that are more than a mere instruction to “apply” the exception using well-understood, routine or conventional techniques in the field. Claim 6 is eligible because the correlation and critical thinking step (step c) is a law of nature and/or an abstract idea, and it recites additional limitations that when considered as a combination are a meaningful way of applying the exception that is more than a mere instruction to “apply” the exception. Claim 7 is eligible because the recited step of administering antibodies to a patient suffering from julitis does not recite or describe any recognized exception, and the claim is not directed to an exception. However, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as rejected below.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of claims 1-20 are proper.
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, by an imaging tool disposed within a borehole, an image comprising image data of a rock formation, wherein the image tool comprises one or more pads comprising an array of electrodes, wherein one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes is configured to collect resistivity values for at least part of the image data by transmitting a current into the borehole from one or more electrodes in the array of electrodes and measuring a returning current at one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes;
analyzing, by the computing device, the obtained image to identify gaps of missing image data;
generating one or more image masks corresponding to the gaps identified in the analyzed image;
using a model to produce modeled image data for filling in the missing image data in the gaps identified in the image, based on the one or more generated image masks and training data, wherein training data comprises irregular patterns of missing data due to physical irregularities of the borehole resulting in insufficient measuring capabilities of the image tool;
reconstructing the image by filling the gaps of missing image data with the modeled image data produced by the machine learning model; and
analyzing the reconstructed image to identify geological features of the rock formation utilizing at least part of a server system.”
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, and apparatus for claim 15).
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 of “analyzing the obtained image to identify gaps of missing image data”; “using a model to produce modeled image data for filling in the missing image data in the gaps identified in the image, based on the one or more generated image masks and training data”; and “reconstructing the image by filling the gaps of missing image data with the modeled image data produced by the machine learning model” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
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.
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, by an imaging tool disposed within a borehole, an image comprising image data of a rock formation, wherein the image tool comprises one or more pads comprising an array of electrodes, wherein one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes is configured to collect resistivity values for at least part of the image data by transmitting a current into the borehole from one or more electrodes in the array of electrodes and measuring a returning current at one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes; by the computing device, generating one or more image masks corresponding to the gaps identified in the analyzed image; wherein 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 utilizing at least part of a server system.
The additional elements “obtaining, by an imaging tool disposed within a borehole, an image comprising image data of a rock formation, wherein the image tool comprises one or more pads comprising an array of electrodes, wherein one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes is configured to collect resistivity values for at least part of the image data” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is recited in generality therefore, only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements “by transmitting a current into the borehole from one or more electrodes in the array of electrodes and measuring a returning current at one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes”; “generating one or more image masks corresponding to the gaps identified in the analyzed image”; “wherein 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 “utilizing at least part of a server system” 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.
The additional element “a server system” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
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, by an imaging tool disposed within a borehole, an image comprising image data of a rock formation, wherein the image tool comprises one or more pads comprising an array of electrodes is disclosed by “Parker US 20160032717A1”, [0011], [0047], [0134]; Claim 15; and “Yang US 20170178313”, [0007], [0023], [0024]; [0025], [0027], [0029], [0054].
For example, generating one or more image masks corresponding to the gaps identified in the analyzed image is disclosed by “Grigoriev US 20210334935”, Abstract, [0018], [0019], [0021], [0081], Claim 12; and “Fu US 20200118063”, [0028]; Claim 7.
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 2019191476, “Iwanicki US 20030164706”, “Grigoriev US 20210334935”, “Mulchandani US 20210125312”, “Hurst US 20050206890”, “Parker US 20160032717”, “Yang US 20170178313”, “Donderici US 20170160422”, and “Sungkorn US 2020022517”.
As to claims 1, 9, and 15, Nguyen teaches obtaining, by an imaging tool disposed within a borehole, an image comprising image data of a rock formation, wherein the image tool comprises one or more pads comprising an array of electrodes, wherein one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes is configured to collect resistivity values for at least part of the image data (Nguyen, [0001], [0014], [0022], [0025], [0043], [0064]);
analyzing, by the computing device, the obtained image to identify gaps of missing image data (Nguyen, [0055]);
reconstructing the image by filling the gaps of missing image data with the image data produced (Nguyen, [0030], FIG. 4; FIG. 9, [0041]); and
analyzing the reconstructed image to identify geological features of the rock formation (Nguyen, [0015]; [0068]).
Donderici teaches transmitting a current into the borehole from one or more electrodes in the array of electrodes and measuring a returning current at one or more electrodes from the array of electrodes (Donderici, [0019], [0027], [0031], [0038], [0052], [0057]).
Iwanicki teaches wherein the image tool comprises one or more pads comprising an array of electrodes (Iwanicki, [0004], [0005], [0010], [0015]).
Grigoriev discloses generating one or more image masks corresponding to the gaps identified in the analyzed image (Grigoriev, [0019], [0115]);
using a model to produce modeled image data for filling in the missing image data in the gaps identified in the image, based on the one or more generated image masks and training data (Grigoriev, [0018], [0021], [0081], FIG. 2, [0134], Claim 12),
reconstructing the image by filling the gaps of missing image data with the modeled image data produced by the machine learning model (Grigoriev, [0081], FIG. 2, [0134]).
Mulchandani teaches wherein training data comprises irregular patterns of missing data (Mulchandani, [0018], [0034], FIG. 4, [0068]).
Sungkorn teaches analyzing the reconstructed image to identify geological features of the rock formation utilizing at least part of a server system (Sungkorn, [0031]; [0034], [0098], [0099], [0104]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LeFranc teaches “Methods may include creating a fracture set from a collection of intersecting fractures in a borehole image log recorded within a subterranean formation; classifying the fracture set into groups of fully and partially intersecting fractures; calculating one or more of the elongation ratio and the rotation angle of the partially intersecting fractures; determining a probability of full intersection of fractures from the fracture set; and determining a fracture size or a parametric distribution of fracture sizes from the fracture set using the calculated one or more of the elongation ratio and the rotation angle and the determined probability of full intersection of formation fractures within the borehole.”
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