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 .
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 19-20 are presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 04/02/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claims 1-3 and 17 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU YANGQIU (WO 2020222757 A1) further in the view of Timothy S. Paulsen, Richard D. Jarrard, Terry J. Wilson, "A simple method for orienting drill core by correlating features in whole-core scans and oriented borehole-wall imagery," Journal of Structural Geology, Volume 24, Issue 8, 2002.
Claims 5 - 6 and 19-20 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU YANGQIU (WO 2020222757 A1) further in the view of Timothy S. Paulsen, Richard D. Jarrard, Terry J. Wilson, "A simple method for orienting drill core by correlating features in whole-core scans and oriented borehole-wall imagery," Journal of Structural Geology, Volume 24, Issue 8, 2002 in the view of Osypov; Konstantin (US 20240069228), further in the view of GEE T W (US 20200300064)
Claims 8 - 9 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU YANGQIU (WO 2020222757 A1) further in the view of Timothy S. Paulsen, Richard D. Jarrard, Terry J. Wilson, "A simple method for orienting drill core by correlating features in whole-core scans and oriented borehole-wall imagery," Journal of Structural Geology, Volume 24, Issue 8, 2002 further in the view of Hashemi, N. S., Aghdam, R. B., Ghiasi, A. S. B., & Fatemi, P. (2016). Template Matching Advances and Applications in Image Analysis. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 26(3).
This action is final rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 05/16/2024 and 09/21/2022 have been reviewed and considered. See attached document.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the drawing , the objections of the drawing is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments to the specification, the objections of the specification is Withdrawn.
The objections of the abstract is Withdrawn.
Applicants Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s argument: The claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the claimed steps (1)-(3) are unconventional so claims are significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility test in view of MPEP §§ 2106.05(d)(I) and 2106.07(a) and the Berkheimer decision.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees, that claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A and claims are significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B. The applicant has not pointed out or recite additional element on the claim that integrated the abstract idea into practical application or improvement on the additional elements MPEP 2106.05(a): "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements... " Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, "an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology." According to [0034] coring can be performed conventionally to yield continuous section of the rock in the form of whole cores and “obtaining...” is insignificant extra activity as well. While the applicant also argues there is improvement on the specification, but the improvements are not recited on the claims besides improvement on the abstract idea. See the newly 35 USC 101 rejection below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicants Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s argument: Timothy and Iftekharuddin, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest, inter alia, "determining, using a computer processor, a reorientation angle for the second core image using a first search window with the first core image and a second search window with the second core image" and "determining, by the computer processor, an oriented image of the second rock core base on rotating the second core image through the reorientation angle, wherein the reorientation angle is determined based on a cross correlation that matches a portion of the first core image with a portion of the second core image using the first search window and the second search window, wherein the first search window is rotated through a plurality of reorientation angles in matching the portion of the first core image with the portion of the second core image.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner agrees, the combined model does not explicitly teach the above limitations, but a newly combined model teaches all the above limitations. See 103 rejection below.
For dependent claims, since the independent claim is rejected under a new prior art, see 103 rejection below for dependent claims as well.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are
A forward geological modeler on claims 19
A wellbore planning system on claim 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's note : The hardware for the above modules will be interpreted as a
Page 8 computing device that includes a processor and memory in accordance with [0029] of the specification, so they are interpreted as a system, model or hardware that can able to perform the specified action on the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 17 recites “the coring operation measures a first core orientation of the first rock core prior to extraction of the first rock core” but in the specification there is no enough description that teaches the above limitation. As it is cited on argument this claim limitation is teaches on [0002] of the specification(examiner disagrees), since on [0002], it defines what absolute orientation angle is without how it is measured before extraction. In addition to that on [0003], it says “Despite its benefits, measuring core orientation downhole is expensive and has a margin of error. For that, if one of two cores has a known "absolute" orientation angle, a process of "relative" reorientation can be performed to extrapolate the orientation information to the other core.”
The dependent claims 2-3. 5-6, 8-9 and 20 are also rejected with the same rational since they are dependent on either claim 1 or 17.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception of an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claim further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Yes, the claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 19-20 are directed to a method and system, which fall within the statutory category of process.
Step 2A prong 1: Yes, the claims recites abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 1 and 17:
determining, using a reorientation angle for the second core image using a first search window with the first core image and a second search window with the second core image, wherein the reorientation angle is determined based on a cross correlation that matches a portion of the first core image with a portion of the second core image using the first search window and the second search window, and wherein the first search window is rotated through a plurality of reorientation angles in matching the portion of the first core image with the portion of the second core image: (under its broadest reasonable interpretation this claim limitation recites a mental process. A human mind can find the angle between two sample segments (first search window and second search window) by machining the portions of each images. As it is shown on fig. 6, a human can observe / analyses the core image by aligning and observe if the segments of the two images match by moving one image relative to the other until a perfect match is created as it shown on fig.6 (d).Generally using two images a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the angle between two images using pan and paper, so this can be practically performed by human mind with some help of physical aids like trigonometry. So, this limitation also recited a mental process include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
determining, by an oriented image of the second rock core based, on rotating the second core image through the reorientation angle (under its broadest interpretation this limitation is an abstract idea under mental process. Based on the determined reorientation angle, a person of ordinary skill in the art can rotate second image to find oriented image using pan and paper through the determined reorientation angle. so this can be practically performed by human mind with some the help of physical aids like trigonometry. So, this limitation also recited a mental process include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
Step 2A Prong 2: No
The above judicially exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate
the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not
have additional elements of a combination of additional elements that apply, rely or use
the judicial exception in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception.
Claims recites gathering data and data manipulation, which is insignificant extra
solution activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g.,
mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step
of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be
analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see
MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The following claim limitations perform insignificant extra activity data gathering and WURC.
extracting, during a coring operation in a wellbore, a first rock core at a first depth using a coring bit attaching to a core barrel, wherein the coring operation measures a first core orientation of the first rock core prior to extraction of the first rock core;( insignificant extra activity – WURC, there is no specific way of extracting a core image is recited)
obtaining a first core image of the first rock core, wherein the first core image is an unrolled 360-degree image associated with the first core orientation; obtaining a second core image of a second rock core at a second depth that is different from the first depth (insignificant extra activity data gathering).
Step 2B: No The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claims recited of additional
element of "a computer processor”, and “extracting… a coring bit attaching to a core barrel… prior to extraction of the first rock core” a computer is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas and using a computer does not make improvement to the functioning. Merely using a computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer. Collecting information and using output for the rest of the claim is adding extra solution without integrating the abstract idea into practical application. Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
extracting… a coring bit attaching to a core barrel… prior to extraction of the first rock core” is also WURC , according to [0034] coring operation can be performed conventionally and this limitation doesn’t have any specific additional element which makes more that insignificant extra activity.
Regarding dependent claims:
Claim 2 -3:
“wherein the first core image is an image of a circumferential surface of the first rock core and the second core image is an image of a circumferential surface of the second rock core, where the first rock core and the second rock core are taken from contiguous location in the wellbore” is performing insignificant extra activities since they just get more specific and defines the information obtained in order to perform abstract idea.
Claim 5- 6 and 20- 19: have additional elements of wellbore planning system and drilling system which are not significantly more that the abstract idea. Under broadest interpretation, the wellbore planning system (152) may include a computer processor with hardware- appropriate software to plan an optimized wellbore trajectory
(Para 29), so this is merely using a computer to perform planning, which is generally
linking of judicial exceptions to a technology.( Generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim
describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and
energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical
and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ
193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).)
Claim 8:
determining a trajectory in depth and azimuth of a geologic features in the first core; under its broadest interpretation, this limitation can be performed by a
human mind with a physical aid like trigonometry or pen and paper. A person of ordinary
skill in the art can observe the image and know a trajectory in depth and azimuth of the
geological features since according to the specification this features are well known in
the art that appears in a rock core image (Para 47, thus, wellbores (104) frequently
intersect bedding planes at angles close to perpendicular. In these circumstances, it is
well-known in the art that the trajectory in depth and azimuth of the geological feature
appears in the rock core image (704) as a sinusoidal curve (706)). So this claim
limitation recites mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and
opinions.
extrapolating the trajectory from the first image to the depth of the
second core image; under its broadest interpretation, this limitation can be
performed by a human mind with a physical aid like pen and paper. A person of ordinary
skill in the art can extrapolate a trajectory from one image to other like drawing lines
from one image to the other. So this claim limitation recites mental processes include
observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
determining a matching function based, at least in part, on a cross correlation
of the extrapolated trajectory and the second image. This claim recites a cross correlation on gathered information, which is a mathematical concept ( mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) so this limitation is abstract idea under a mathematical concept.
Claim 9:
“wherein the geologic features comprise a bedding plane “ insignificant extra activities since they just get more specific and defines their hieratic claims.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 17 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU YANGQIU (WO 2020222757 A1) further in the view of Timothy S. Paulsen, Richard D. Jarrard, Terry J. Wilson, "A simple method for orienting drill core by correlating features in whole-core scans and oriented borehole-wall imagery," Journal of Structural Geology, Volume 24, Issue 8, 2002.
As of claim 1, Hu teaches extracting, during a coring operation in a wellbore, a first rock core at a first depth using a coring bit attaching to a core barrel,(Fig.8,” a core retrieval system for collecting core samples”, [0002], During conventional coring operations, the operator first drills the well down to a zone of interest using a drill bit and drill string and extracts one or more core samples…[0025], Generally, a set of core samples are extracted from a continuous depth range such as 100 - 150 feet or 30 - 45 meters below a surface, and multiple sets of core samples can be extracted at various depth ranges).
wherein the coring operation measures a first core orientation of the first rock core prior to extraction of the first rock core; ([0046], Ideally, after rotational and longitudinal alignment, the core samples represented in the core sample image 601 and the core sample image 602 are aligned and positioned relative to each other as originally positioned in a formation prior to extraction).
obtaining a second core image of a second rock core at a second depth that is different from the first depth.( [0025], Generally, a set of core samples are extracted from a continuous depth range such as 100 - 150 feet or 30 - 45 meters below a surface, and multiple sets of core samples can be extracted at various depth ranges… For example, a first cote sample may be 3 feet long (91.44 centimeters) and 4 inches (10.16 centimeters) in diameter, and a second core sample may be 2 feet long (60.96 centimeters) and 3 inches (22.86 centimeters) in diameter. The core samples are typically cylindrical in shape although other shapes, such as cubes or spheres, are possible. Moreover, core samples may break during extraction or transport).
determining, using a computer processor, a reorientation angle for the second core image using a first search window with the first core image and a second search window with the second core image, ([0020] At stage D, the alignment service 101 determines a rotational alignment between the core sample image 103 and the core sample image 107. While rotational alignment may be considered optional in some implementations, rotational alignment improves the visualization of geologic features that exhibit continuity across multiple sample images, such as beddings and vertical fractures. The core sample image 107 is a core sample image from the core scans 102 which was previously aligned by the alignment service 101. The alignment service 101 selects a sub-volume 108 from the core sample image 107 and a sub-volume 109 from the core sample image 103 for comparison in determining the correct rotational alignment of the core sample images. The size, e.g., a depth of 1 foot, 2 feet, 30 centimeters, 1 meter, etc., and location of the selected sub-volumes can vary; however, selecting the sub-volumes from the center of core sample images can be beneficial since the end portions of the core samples are often damaged or modified during the core sample process. A larger sub-volume generally leads to a more accurate rotational alignment since more information is compared but is more computationally intensive. To compare the sub-volumes, the alignment service 101 iteratively rotates the sub- volume 109 from 0 - 360 degrees about the z-axis while the sub-volume 108 remains stationary. The alignment service 101 determines a similarity metric between the sub-volumes at each specified degree of rotation…
[0029], Ultimately, the alignment service identifies a degree of rotation of the selected core sample image relative to the previously aligned cote sample image which causes the core samples represented in the core sample images to be roughly aligned as originally positioned in a formation).
wherein the reorientation angle is determined based on a cross correlation that matches a portion of the first core image with a portion of the second core image using the first search window and the second search window, and wherein the first search window is rotated through a plurality of reorientation angles in matching the portion of the first core image with the portion of the second core image: and ([0020] To compare the sub-volumes, the alignment service 101 iteratively rotates the sub- volume 109 from 0 - 360 degrees about the z-axis while the sub-volume 108 remains stationary. The alignment service 101 determines a similarity metric between the sub-volumes at each specified degree of rotation. The alignment service 101 can determine a similarity metric for each whole degree, every tenth of a degree, or may utilize a coarse scale such as every fifth degree, i.e., 0, 5, 10, etc. The rotation causes different voxels to be compared between the sub- volume 108 and the sub-volume 109 at each unique position in the rotation… [0021] As shown in the rotational alignment graph 110 in Figure 1, the alignment service 101 determines a similarity' metric between the sub-volumes based on a correlation coefficient).
While Hu does not explicitly teach obtaining a first core image of the first rock core, wherein the first core image is an unrolled 360-degree image associated with the first core orientation; determining, by the computer processor, an oriented image of the second rock core based, on rotating the second core image through the reorientation angle.
While Timothy teaches obtaining a first core image of the first rock core, wherein the first core image is an unrolled 360-degree image associated with the first core orientation; (Section 3,"Reorientation of drill core", True north is on the left side of the oriented BHTV image and initially the arbitrary 'north' defined by the red scribe line is also revolved to the left side of the unrolled core image). On Fig 5 Timothy compares BHTV imagery and drill core imagery for reorientation of the drill core and as it listed above BHTV is oriented and first core image is mapped to drill core imagery as shown on figure 5, as unrolled 360 degree.
determining, by the computer processor, an oriented image of the second rock core based, on rotating the second core image through the reorientation angle. (Section 3 "Reorientation of drill core", Fig. 5. Example of matching features between drill core and borehole wall to reorient drill core from the third Cape Roberts drill core. Note that the scribe line does not coincide with North after the whole core scan image is rotated to match the BHTV image. The sinusoids have larger amplitudes on the BHTV image because it has a larger diameter than the whole-core image .... In cases where coreBHTV feature matching detects a core mismatch, then core intervals above and below the break can be reoriented independently based on rotation angles calculated for each interval.)
Hu and Timothy are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since they focus on core image rotation/ alignment using rotational angle. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to apply Hu teaching of determining a degree of rotation using a search window and cross correlation on two core images in order to determine oriented cock core image as Timothy teaches.
The motivation would have been performing core analysis is useful for well log calibration and providing direct evidence of the presence, distribution, and deliverability of hydrocarbon. Core analysis provides important information useful to determine the optimal values for various parameters during formation drilling and hydrocarbon production such as when to drill, what a target depth for fracturing should be, which wells to inject with fluids, etc (Hu [0002]) and finding accurate reorientation angle well help to robust matching of features according to Timothy(introduction).
Claim 17 is in the same scope as that of claim 1 with additional element and the additional limitation is teaches by Hu, such that a drilling system comprising a core sampling system, a drill bit and a drill string, wherein the core sampling system comprises a coring bit attaching to a core barrel (Fig. 8 drilling system, [0002], During conventional coring operations, the operator first drills the well down to a zone of interest using a drill bit and drill string and extracts one or more core sample).
Therefore claim 17 is also rejected under the same rational as of claim 1.
As of claim 2, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Timothy also teaches wherein the first core image is an image of a circumferential surface of the first rock core and the second core image is an image of a circumferential surface of the second rock core ((Fig 5. BHTV imagery and Drill core imagery). As it showed on FIG 5, the two images outer surface is displayed from a circular image (the image starts and ends on north. N E SW N).
As of claim 3, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Hu also teaches where the first rock core and the second rock core are taken from contiguous location in the wellbore ([0025], The set of core sample images to be aligned represent a contiguous set of core samples extracted from a borehole or subterranean formation. Generally, a set of core samples are extracted from a continuous depth range such as 100 - 150 feet or 30 - 45 meters below a surface, and multiple sets of core samples can be extracted at various depth ranges).
Claims 5 - 6 and 19-20 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU YANGQIU (WO 2020222757 A1) further in the view of Timothy S. Paulsen, Richard D. Jarrard, Terry J. Wilson, "A simple method for orienting drill core by correlating features in whole-core scans and oriented borehole-wall imagery," Journal of Structural Geology, Volume 24, Issue 8, 2002 in the view of Osypov; Konstantin (US 20240069228), further in the view of GEE T W (US 20200300064)
As of claim 5, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach updating a geological model of a hydrocarbon reservoir based, at least in part, on the oriented image, and planning a wellbore trajectory using a wellbore planning system based, at least in part, on the updated geological model.
While Osypov teaches updating a geological model of a hydrocarbon reservoir based, at least in part, on the oriented image ( Para 21, updating a geological model, updating a well plan that can be used for drilling wells in the hydrocarbon reservoir to retrieve hydrocarbons, drilling of wells, and production planning).
Osypov is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they focus on core image analysis for the distribution of hydrocarbons in the formations. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Osypov teaching of updating a geological model, updating a well plan that can be used for drilling wells on the modified model on the oriented image.
The motivation would have been to improve the creation of the one or more
synthetic images for hydrocarbon distribution (Osypov, para 30), by applying image matching and reorientation for more accurate hydrocarbon distribution analysis.
The modified model do not explicitly teaches planning a wellbore trajectory using a wellbore planning system and drilling system.
While Gee teaches planning a wellbore trajectory using a wellbore planning
system based, at least in part, on the updated geological model. (Abstract: the stratigraphic heat maps can be displayed and used to determine the location of the wellbore relative to one or more geological formations, including one or more target
formations or within a target formation. Based on the use of the heat maps and the
location of the wellbore relative to a target, the drill plan can be adjusted or updated and/or one or more drilling parameters or operations may be adjusted to drill the wellbore).
Gee is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they focus on determination of hydrocarbon reservoir location with the help of drilling. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Gee teaching of the drill planning on updated geological model of the modified model.
The motivation would have been to improve the drilling decisions using a planned
trajectories and improve drilling performance, such as by reducing an error in estimating
TVD or a position of BHA 149 relative to one or more strata layers ( Gee, para 62, 65).
Claim 19 is also in the same scope as that of claim 5, with additional element of a forward geological modeler (see claim interpretation above ) but , Osypov also teaches geological modeler as it cited above on claim 5.
Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as that of claim 5.
As of claim 6 the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Gee also teaches drilling a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory using a drilling system.(para 111, The subject wellbore can be steered into one or multiple
geological stratigraphic targets. The directional drilling process typically follows a spatial well plan, in which the position of the desired wellbore trajectory is given in spatial coordinates, Fig 5 drilling rig( as a drilling system)).
Claim 20 is in the same scope as that of claim 6, so claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Claims 8-9 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU YANGQIU (WO 2020222757 A1) further in the view of Timothy S. Paulsen, Richard D. Jarrard, Terry J. Wilson, "A simple method for orienting drill core by correlating features in whole-core scans and oriented borehole-wall imagery," Journal of Structural Geology, Volume 24, Issue 8, 2002 further in the view of Hashemi, N. S., Aghdam, R. B., Ghiasi, A. S. B., & Fatemi, P. (2016). Template Matching Advances and Applications in Image Analysis. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 26(3).
As of claim 8, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Timothy also teaches determining a trajectory in depth and azimuth of a geologic features in the first core (Fig 5. Show trajectory from one BHTV imagery to Drill core imagery in the given depth( meters below seafloor), it also shows a sinusoidal curve). Drill core imagery is considered as first core.
extrapolating the trajectory from the first core image to the depth of the second core image; and ( Fig 5, shows the trajectory from one BHTV imagery to Drill core imagery and it also have sinusoidal curve representation). According to the specification on para 48, The determined sinusoid may then be used, for example by extrapolation, to predict the anticipated location of the geological feature (708) in the disoriented search window (612)).
PNG
media_image1.png
627
1079
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The modified model does not explicitly teach determining a matching function based, at least in part, on a cross correlation of the extrapolated trajectory and the second core image.
While Hashemi teaches determining a matching function based, at least in part, on a cross correlation of the extrapolated trajectory and the second core image.(Section D, "image correlation matching", In this classic template
matching method, the similarity metric between the target and the template is
measured. Unlike the nave template matching algorithm, the target and the template might have different image intensities or noise levels. However, those images must be aligned. The similarity metric used in this approach is based on the correlation between the target and the template. 1) Cross-Correlation: In image processing, cross correlation is a measure of the similarity of two images where the images are of different sizes. By sliding the first image (template) over the second image (target), the correlation between the two images is measured. The cross-correlation method is similar in nature to the convolution of two functions. Additionally, cross-correlation of a given signal or image with itself is called auto-correlation [12]).
Hashemi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because it focus on image rotation and analysis. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Hashemi teaching of determining a matching function based on a cross correlation on aligning actual features on oriented image by computing similarity.
The motivation would have been in order to improving the accuracy of the matching system(Hashemi, conclusion) by computing a matching function based on cross correlation.
As of claim 9, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and Hu also teaches wherein the geologic features comprise a bedding plane (figure 1, label 104-105, [0020], While rotational alignment may be considered optional in some implementations, rotational alignment improves the visualization of geologic features that exhibit continuity across multiple sample images, such as beddings and vertical fractures).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Krishnaswamy;(US 20140140609 A1, Date Published 2014-05-22), this
invention is also teaching image rotating based on context to correct image orientation. It also determined the amount of rotation, in order to rotate the unrotated image.
Gettemy:(US 20210349042 A1, Date Published 2021-11-11), this invention also
recites analyzing a rock sample includes segmenting a digital image and further
includes machining the rock sample to expose physical faces that correspond to the identified digital planes.
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 ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571 272 4071. 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.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights