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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/02/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 03/06/2025.
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(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 recites obtaining rock drill cuttings representations indexed to a depth at which respective rock drill cuttings are produced; preprocessing the rock drill cuttings representations by applying at least one transformation to the rock drill cuttings representations, wherein timestamps associated with the rock drill cuttings representations are mapped to the depth at which respective rock drill cuttings are produced; segmenting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into segmented pictures by inputting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into a trained first machine learning model that outputs the segmented pictures, wherein the segmented pictures are masked images that include at least one rock type; and predicting depth indexed mineralogical or sedimentological data while drilling and in real time based on the segmented pictures input to a trained second machine learning model [Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, 15, Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, 16-18 recite(s) wherein the second machine learning model is trained to predict custom categories comprising categories corresponding to a specific asset. wherein the first machine learning model segments and groups individual rocks visible in each picture or frame using unsupervised learning. wherein the trained second machine learning model is a supervised convolutional neural network. [Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. one or more memory modules; one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory models to perform operations comprising:);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. rock drill cuttings).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references as evidence of additional elements (e.g., generic computer structure and generic machine learning models being used as a tool to process data)).
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
After further consideration and consultation, incorporating the additional elements of either claim(s) 5, 6, 7 into independent claim 1 (similarly for the other independent claims) would practically apply the abstract idea and cure the rejection(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20 is/are allowed.
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
None of the cited prior art alone or in combination provides motivation to explicitly teach:
obtaining rock drill cuttings representations indexed to a depth at which respective rock drill cuttings are produced;
preprocessing the rock drill cuttings representations by
applying at least one transformation to the rock drill cuttings representations,
wherein
timestamps associated with the rock drill cuttings representations are mapped to the depth at which respective rock drill cuttings are produced;
segmenting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into segmented pictures by
inputting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into a trained first machine learning model that outputs the segmented pictures,
wherein
the segmented pictures are masked images that include at least one rock type; and
predicting depth indexed mineralogical or sedimentological data while drilling and in real time based on the segmented pictures input to a trained second machine learning model
of claim(s) 1, 8, 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 6-9, filed 07/02/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant states
“Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner “interprets the claimed invention to utilize generic computer structure as a tool to generically acquire and process data/information generally linked to the technical environment of rock drill cuttings without practically applying the result of the identified abstract idea and/or adding significantly more than the identified abstract idea.” Office Action, p. 14. For reasons described below, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has failed to properly apply each step of the subject matter eligibility analysis. As such, the Examiner has not shown that claims 1-20 recite ineligible subject matter.
The MPEP guides examiners to “consider the claim as a whole when performing the Step 2A analysis.” MPEP §2106.04. Section 2106.04(a) states that it is “critical that examiners ... evaluate both the specification and the claim.” The “Examiner relies on the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2-Prong Analysis) and precedential cases utilizing said guidance.” Office Action, p. 15. The Examiner also asserts that “[a]n improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” /d. The Examiner’s analysis of the claims for subject matter eligibility is flawed at least because the Examiner fails to review the independent claims as a whole at Prong 1| of the Step 2A analysis. Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not correctly identified the technical environment of the claims, which has led to an oversight of the specific technological improvements made by the claims.
In particular, the Examiner’s assertion that the claims are “generally linked to the technical environment of rock drill cuttings” is nonsensical, at least because the specification provides that “[rJock drill cuttings are produced by the action of drilling a wellbore, and are brought up to surface continuously by the recirculation of drilling mud fluids along the annulus.” Specification, para. [0015]. Rock drill cuttings are a physical byproduct of the drilling process, not part of the technological infrastructure or system. They are the result of mechanical action on the rock, rather than a component of a technical system. The Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15 is directed to technical solutions that address technical problems.
More particularly, and as discussed in the instant application:
The present techniques enable a consolidated, centralized, fast, and inexpensive interpretation of rock drill cuttings. Further, the present techniques reduce costs through automating cuttings interpretation while simultaneously increasing the usability and accuracy of the interpretation through consolidation.
Specification, para. [0015]; Emphasis added.
The claims enable interpretation through automated, real-time depth indexed mineralogical or sedimentological data. Like the inventions in Enfish, Core Wireless, and Koninklijke as described below, the present claims provide technical improvements over the prior art, such as accurate, automated, real-time depth indexed mineralogical or sedimentological data.
The Federal Circuit has stated that identifying the “character” of the claims is an essential part of the step one analysis as recognized by numerous Federal Circuit decisions. For example, in Enfish the Federal Circuit emphasized that the claims should be examined to determine if they are directed to an improvement in computer functionality rather than an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC vy. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The specification at issue in Enfish taught that the invention provided technical improvements over the prior art, such as “increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.” Enfish at 1337. Based upon this support in the specification, the Federal Circuit found the claims were directed to a technical improvement and not an improvement related to an abstract idea. Jd. Consequently, the claims were patent-eligible under step one. Similarly, in Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit found that claims for a mobile device user interface were directed to a technical advancement over the prior art because the specification explained that earlier interfaces “required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired data or functionality” and that such prior art interfaces “seem slow, complex and difficult to learn, particularly to novice users.” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In Koninklijke, the Federal Circuit held that claims 2-4 were directed to an improved check data generating device that enables a data transmission error detection system to detect specific types of errors that prior art systems could not. Koninklijke KPN NV vy. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claims were found to represent a non-abstract improvement in the functionality of an existing technological process. In particular, the claims were found to recite “a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process.” Koninklijke at 1150. Similarly, the present claims recite a specific method that solves a problem in the existing technological process of cuttings interpretation. The claims recite a specific way to preprocess rock drill cuttings representations and segment the rock drill cuttings representations to predict depth indexed mineralogical or sedimentological data in real time. Accordingly, like claims 2-4 of Koninklijke, the present claims are patent eligible.
With regard to each of claims 1, 8, and 15, at least the features of “preprocessing rock drill cuttings representations by applying at least one transformation to the rock drill cuttings representations, wherein the timestamps associated with the rock drill cuttings representations are mapped to the depth at which respective rock drill cuttings are produced” and “segmenting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into segmented pictures by inputting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into a first trained machine learning model that outputs segmented pictures, wherein the segmented pictures are masked images that include at least one rock type” provide technical improvements over other cuttings interpretations, as discussed in further detail below. For example, and in contrast to the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15, “the traditional practice of human interpretation of rock drill cuttings ... is prone to human bias, labor-intensive, and expensive.” Specification, para. [0031].
With regard to technical improvements achieved by the subject matter of the instant application, as embodied in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, the instant application discusses that “the present techniques reduce costs and deliver consistent and comparable interpretations across multiple wellbores and within each individual wellbore across multiple geological units.” Specification, para. [0017]. Further, “[a]s shown in Figure 5, interpretation 502 made by the deployed trained machine learning models is more accurate than the human interpretation 504 of the cuttings.” Specification, para. [0044]. More plainly stated, the subject matter of the instant application, as embodied in the claims, predicts depth indexed mineralogical or sedimentological data while drilling and in real time based that achieves multiple technical advantages, such the speed and accuracy as explicitly discussed in the instant application.
Even assuming, arguendo, the subject matter of claims includes generic or conventional computer components, which the Applicant does not concede, this does not obviate the numerous technical improvements achieved by the subject matter of claims in such components. In fact, this enhances the patent-eligibility of the claims in that, because these technical improvements are provided, conventional computer components can be used, which obviates the need for specialized and/or non-conventional computer components to predict depth indexed mineralogical or sedimentological data.
For at least the foregoing reasons, each of claims 1, 8, and 15, and their respective dependent claims, as previously presented, is patent-eligible.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner maintains previous response:
Examiner interprets the claimed invention to utilize generic computer structure as a tool to generically acquire and process data/information generally linked to the technical environment of rock drill cuttings without practically applying the result of the identified abstract idea and/or adding significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
One skilled in the art would be able to obtain, process, segment, and predict data/information mentally via observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.
One skilled in the art would be able train and utilize mathematical models (i.e., machine learning models) to obtain, process, segment, and predict data/information.
An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Examiner relies on the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2-Prong Analysis) and precedential cases utilizing said guidance. Any remarks pertaining to case law not utilizing the most current Patent Eligibility Guidance is moot. Any remarks pertaining to non-precedential case law is also moot.
For the sake of argument:
Applicant relies on the court decision Thales Visionix v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017; Case 2015-5150) to argue that the claimed language is patent eligible. In contrast to the claimed invention, the courts found Thales Visionix v. United States patent eligible because of the unconventional configuration of the inertial sensors claimed (the court decision states “the claims are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner…The claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors”. The claimed invention does not claim any novel/unconventional physical elements or combination/configuration of physical elements that would be seen as significantly more than the abstract idea identified.
Applicant compares the claimed invention to Court Decision Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. In contrast to the claimed invention, the Enfish courts found that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. The claims of the patents at issue in this case (Enfish) describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Further, the Enfish courts found the invention to be directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, and concluded that the Enfish claims were thus not directed to an abstract idea (under Step 2A).
Applicant compares the claimed invention to Court Decision BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3D 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In contrast to the claimed invention, the BASCOM courts found that the invention was found to have an inventive concept in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. The additional elements of the claimed invention are understood to have to have a conventional and generic arrangement, therefore not seen as significantly more.
In addition to the previous response:
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Examiner relies on the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2-Prong Analysis) and precedential cases utilizing said guidance. Any remarks pertaining to case law not utilizing the most current Patent Eligibility Guidance is moot. Any remarks pertaining to non-precedential case law is also moot.
For the sake of argument:
Applicant compares the claimed invention to Court Decision Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 125 USPQ2d 1436 (January 25, 2018). In contrast to the claimed invention, the Core Wireless courts found the invention to be patent eligible because “The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices…these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices…These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer…This language clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens”.
Further consideration of dependent claim(s):
After further consideration and consultation, incorporating the additional elements of either claim(s) 5, 6, 7 into independent claim 1 (similarly for the other independent claims) would practically apply the abstract idea and cure the rejection(s).
Applicant’s argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 9-13, filed 07/02/2025, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
-Applicant states
“The Examiner asserts that the Abstract of Badis teaches “segmenting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into segmented pictures by inputting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into a trained first machine learning model that outputs the segmented pictures, wherein the segmented pictures are masked images that include at least one rock type.” Office Action, p. 6. The Examiner seemingly equates the cuttings images captured by the camera of Badis with the segmented pictures recited by the present claims. The Applicant respectfully submits that Badis is limited to using “a camera on the shaker screen, capturing the cuttings images and applying computer vision and convolutional neural networks algorithms to identify and classify individual cuttings shape, size and type combined with wireline data to raise alarms on specific conditions and prescribe actions to mitigate the problem.” Badis, Abstract. Even if the cuttings images of Badis could be considered segmented pictures, which the Applicant does not concede, the Examiner has failed to identify any “masked images that include at least one rock type” as recited by the present claims. Accordingly, the Examiner does not show that Badis teaches or suggests “segmenting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into segmented pictures by inputting the preprocessed rock drill cuttings representations into a trained first machine learning model that outputs the segmented pictures, wherein the segmented pictures are masked images that include at least one rock type.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
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 extension fee 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 RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit