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 . The amendment filed 03/27/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections -35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein generating the bond-map generation" in line(s) 21. Anteceding this limitation, there is no "generating the bond-map generation" but "generating the bond-map". As to claims 10, 19, the same deficiency applies.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: claim 1 recites:
identifying a set of Boolean operations by a processor to associate with a computer model, wherein each respective Boolean operation of the set of Boolean operations evaluates a measurable well-log signal attribute and identifies a characteristic of a set of characteristics and is associated with a feature of a set of wellbore features… wherein the characteristic of the set of characteristics and the feature of the set of wellbore features are matched based on one or more constraints… computing cement-quality indicators per depth based on the results of applying the computer model to the second dataset
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts: observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions; but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations “identifying a set of Boolean operations by a processor to associate with a computer model, wherein each respective Boolean operation of the set of Boolean operations evaluates a measurable well-log signal attribute and identifies a characteristic of a set of characteristics and is associated with a feature of a set of wellbore features", under their broadest reasonable interpretations, identifying Boolean operations, evaluating attributes, and identifying characteristics are mental concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0035] Node 505 is associated with notations, numbers, or values of X[22] that is a notation identifies a frequency of 22 thousand Hertz (KHz) being less than or equal to a value of voltage or pressure… When a magnitude of a received acoustic signal of 22 KHz is less than or equal to 0.006 volts, the left branch attached to node 505 will be followed to node 510 and when the value of the received 22 KHz acoustic signal is greater than 0.006 volts, the right branch attached to node 505 will be followed to node 515. This means that the Boolean operation associated with node 505 is related to a measured magnitude of a received acoustic signal at 22 KHz. Values of acoustic samples evaluated by the Boolean operation of node 505 may have been identified from wellbore data that was collected using transmitters and receives… [sic]
[0037]… A Boolean operation associated with node 510 may evaluate whether a frequency associated with a 17 KHz signal (as indicated by the X[17] notation) has a value less than or equal to 0.005 volts“.
As to the limitations “wherein the characteristic of the set of characteristics and the feature of the set of wellbore features are matched based on one or more constraints", the Examiner notes that the “matched" limitation is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification.
As to the limitations “computing cement-quality indicators per depth based on the results of applying the computer model to the second dataset", they are mental in nature. Examiner notes that the limitations “computing cement-quality indicators" are not elaborated in the Specification. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing/quantitatively measuring (observations, evaluations) and deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0019]… For cementing quality control, it is necessary to quantitatively measure the bonding condition at the interfaces between casing, cement, and a rock formation…
[0039]… Tree 500 may be associated with a model that is used to evaluate the quality of cement in a wellbore'
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong two: As to the limitation a processor, it is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “accessing a second dataset associated with a second wellbore based on: the first dataset and the second dataset each including the characteristic of the set of characteristics, and the first wellbore and the second wellbore each including the feature of the set of wellbore features”, they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations “generating the computer model that associates each respective Boolean operation with a respective preceding node that is linked to a first respective following node when the respective Boolean operation has a True value and links to a second respective following node when the respective Boolean operation has a False value; applying the computer model to a first dataset that is associated with a first wellbore when the computer model is trained… applying the computer model to the second dataset to generate results to include in a bond map of the second wellbore", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "generating the bond map of the second wellbore from the results of applying the computer model to the second dataset, wherein generating the bond-map generation includes…" and "servicing the second wellbore based on the generated bond map of the second wellbore", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 1 recites a processor, it is interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added): "[0061]… The processor 1010 can include any general purpose processor".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations "generating the bond map…", the limitations are so broad that little is known about how the bond map is generated. These limitations are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification. As to the limitations "servicing the second wellbore based on the generated bond map of the second wellbore", the specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0046]… This bond map may be provided to regulators that are responsible for overseeing the quality of a wellbore. Such regulators may authorize that a particular wellbore can be placed into service after reviewing the bond map'.
Taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claims 10 and 19, Step 2A Prong One: These claims recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above.
Independent claims 10 and 19, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements computer readable storage medium and apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims, Prong One: The claim limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations “7/16… comparing the bond map of the first wellbore to data derived by applying an cement bonding measuring technique", "8/17… performing an evaluation on data included in the first dataset; and modifying the dataset based on the evaluation, wherein the modifying of the first dataset includes at least one of removing a first data point from or adding a second data point to the first dataset", and "9… filtering data included in the first dataset to remove unwanted frequencies from the first dataset", these activities can be characterized as entailing a user judging, i.e. processing, information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong two: As to the limitations "6/15… modifying one or more characteristics of the set of characteristics as part of the training of the computer model; and applying the computer model to the first dataset after modifying the one or more characteristics" and "7/16… applying the computer model to the first dataset after the computer model is trained to generate a second set of results"; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "7/16… generating a bond map of the first wellbore from the second set of results", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
The claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Philip Teague, (Teague hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20190025450, taken in view of Eirik Time et al., (Time hereinafter), Assisted Cement Log Interpretation (see IDS dated 09/15/2022), and further in view of David M. Chace, (Chace hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20120075953.
As to claim 1, Teague discloses a method comprising: identifying a set of Boolean operations… to associate with a computer model, wherein each respective Boolean operation of the set of Boolean operations evaluates a measurable well-log signal attribute (see "[0048]… data collected was from borehole tools deployed by logging-while-drilling") and identifies a characteristic of a set of characteristics and is associated with a feature of a set of wellbore features (see "Boolean operations… each… identifies a characteristic" as "white-grey-black shades that represent the amplitude of each peak and valley on the waveform. Zero amplitude is grey, negative amplitude is white, and positive amplitude is black", "[0010]… display is created by transforming the sonic waveform at every depth level to a series of white-grey-black shades that represent the amplitude of each peak and valley on the waveform. Zero amplitude is grey, negative amplitude is white, and positive amplitude is black. Intermediate amplitudes are illustrated as intermediate shades of grey"); generating the computer model that associates each respective Boolean operation with a respective preceding node that is linked to a first respective following node when the respective Boolean operation has a True value and links to a second respective following node when the respective Boolean operation has a False value (see "node" as voxel, "[0043]… Three-dimensional x-ray density logs [303] are processed to create a voxelated three-dimensional density map of the cement as a function of depth"); applying the computer model to a first dataset that is associated with a first wellbore when the computer model is trained (see "[0045]… machine learning… to analyze the results of the inversion and quality index flags (produced from the inversion) to determine whether the selection of mechanical properties a specific cement depth interval was optimal, or whether the result would have a higher confidence level if an alternative set of cement characteristics had been used for the adaptive model")… and applying the computer model to the second dataset to generate results to include in a bond map of the second wellbore (see "[0044]… three-dimensional x-ray density logs [303] once pre-processed to create a voxelated three-dimensional density map of the cement as a function of depth [304], are enhanced by the accuracy or confidence-interval of which has been improved dramatically by automated/processed comparison with neutron-porosity logs. The result is an accurate model including actual cement geometries, three-dimensional density variations (corroborated with porosity data), and any casing or formation eccentricities computed for each depth interval"); and generating the bond map of the second wellbore from the results of applying the computer model to the second dataset, wherein generating the bond-map generation includes (see "[0006] Compressive strength of the cement is derived from the attenuation with a correction for casing thickness… bond index is calculated… [0010]… variable density display (VDL) of the acoustic waveforms… provides a visual indication of free or bonded pipe… display… by transforming the sonic waveform at every depth level to a series of white-grey-black shades that represent the amplitude of each peak and valley on the waveform. Zero amplitude is grey, negative amplitude is white, and positive amplitude is black. Intermediate amplitudes are illustrated as intermediate shades of grey. [0011]… ultrasonic imaging… produces acoustic borehole imaging logs. The ultrasonic imaging… is a cased hole cement bond/cement mapping tool, but with more complete coverage of the borehole… precise acoustic measurements of the internal dimensions of the casing and of its thickness provide a map-like presentation of casing condition including internal and external damage or deformation. Rotating head ultrasonic (acoustic) imaging tools are the current state of the art for cement and casing integrity mapping… [0012] Analysis of the reflected ultrasonic waveforms provides information about the acoustic impedance of the material immediately behind the casing. A cement map presents a visual indicator of cement quality")…
About Examiner's interpretation of "Boolean operations… each… identifies a characteristic" as "white-grey-black shades that represent the amplitude of each peak and valley on the waveform. Zero amplitude is grey, negative amplitude is white, and positive amplitude is black", Examiner notes that the Application Description discloses:
"[0037]… A Boolean operation associated with node 510 may evaluate whether a frequency associated with a 17 KHz signal… has a value less than or equal to 0.005 volts“.
Teague does not disclose, but Time discloses by a processor (see "tool consists of a training and a prediction tool integrated with the cased hole logging interpretation software" in page 1, 3rd paragraph)… accessing a second dataset associated with a second wellbore based on: the first dataset and the second dataset each including the characteristic of the set of characteristics, and the first wellbore and the second wellbore each including the feature of the set of wellbore features (see "machine learning classifiers… all do a similar job. During training, they learn the relationship between the inputs (features) and outputs (interpretations) by example. After training, they predict outputs based on inputs that they have not seen before" in page 7, Choice of machine learning classifier, 1st paragraph; "Using the training set of interpreted cement log data, the training tool trains an ML classifier to be able to interpret input cement log data. If the training is successful, the classifier can provide reasonable interpretations of unseen cement log data" in page 5, 1st paragraph; 'In the feature engineering part, the project designed a set of features that could be calculated based on the cement log data. In this manner, the domain knowledge can be used to design features which are relevant for cement log interpretation. Ideally, each feature should be directly predictive of one or more classes. For each 1 m segment to be interpreted, all features are calculated, typically from a "context interval" of surrounding well log data' in page 6, 2nd paragraph)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Time with Teague, because Time discloses that "[t]o assist professional well log interpreters in performing unbiased, consistent, and high-quality cement log interpretations over time, the project has developed an assisted cement log interpretation tool using machine learning. The trained machine learning model assists the interpreters by providing cement bond predictions with confidence values. The predicted interpretations will act as a starting point for the final interpretation, and as such they can: * Make the interpreters’ jobs easier * Help to make interpretations more consistent across multiple interpreters * Efficiently share the expert knowledge learned by the machine learning model from a consistent, high quality labelled training data set".
Teague and Time do not disclose, but Chace discloses wherein the characteristic of the set of characteristics and the feature of the set of wellbore features are matched based on one or more constraints (see “matched” as “compared to evaluate… identif(ying/ied) locations”, '[0046]… measurements from the neutron tool 23 and the acoustic tool 37 are compared to evaluate the casing 18 and/or the cement 20. For example, a cement bond log is compared to a silicon activation count rate log to identify defective portions or bad bonds in the cement 20. [0047]… evaluation includes identifying locations of potential bad bonds from the cement bond log (CBL). A silicon activation count rate log is then used to identify the measured silicon concentration at identified locations corresponding to the potential bad bond locations from the CBL. Inspection of the silicon concentration measurements at the identified locations can be used to determine whether the potential bad bond indication is a microannulus (a minimal gap that does not have a significant effect on the casing/cement integrity) or is truly a void or other defective portion in the cement 20. [0048] The silicon activation count rates at the identified locations are analyzed to determine whether a significant deviation in the silicon activation count rate occurred at that location, which would indicate the presence of a defective portion… a significant deviation is selected as a drop in the silicon activation count rate to a level below a base or reference level, such as an average silicon activation count value. If the silicon activation count rate at an identified location exhibits a significant deviation, the change in composition at that location is considered to be indicative of a void in the cement behind the casing, in contrast to simply a microannulus. [0049] Alternatively, if the silicon activation count rate is within a selected range from the reference level, the "potential" bad bond is considered to be only a microannulus or other insignificant feature, which does not require any mediation or corrective measure')… computing cement-quality indicators per depth based on the results of applying the computer model to the second dataset (see "[0035]… acoustic return signals are analyzed to determine parameters as well as the condition of the cement and/or the cement/casing bond. This analysis may include recording the return signals over time and correlating them to depth as well as processing the associated data to yield a log (e.g., a CBL) or other measurement record… [0046]… measurements from the neutron tool 23 and the acoustic tool 37 are compared to evaluate the casing 18 and/or the cement 20. For example, a cement bond log is compared to a silicon activation count rate log to identify defective portions or bad bonds in the cement 20. [0047]… evaluation includes identifying locations of potential bad bonds from the cement bond log (CBL)"); servicing the second wellbore based on the generated bond map of the second wellbore (see “servicing” as “corrective measures are employed to repair the bad bond”, "[0050]… if a bad bond or void is identified, corrective measures are employed to repair the bad bond. Examples of such corrective measures include conventional remedial cementing such as squeeze cementing").
About Examiner's interpretation of "computing cement-quality indicators per depth based on the results of applying the computer model to the second dataset", the Examiner notes that these limitations are not elaborated in the Specification. The specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0019]… For cementing quality control, it is necessary to quantitatively measure the bonding condition at the interfaces between casing, cement, and a rock formation. Cement bond logging (CBL) plays an important role in determining well integrity and CBL is a way to ensure that a wellbore has acceptable levels of zonal isolation…
[0039]… Tree 500 may be associated with a model that is used to evaluate the quality of cement in a wellbore'
About Examiner's interpretation of "servicing the second wellbore based on the generated bond map of the second wellbore", the Examiner notes that these limitations are not elaborated in the Specification. The specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0046]… This bond map may be provided to regulators that are responsible for overseeing the quality of a wellbore. Such regulators may authorize that a particular wellbore can be placed into service after reviewing the bond map'.
Teague, Time, and Chace are analogous art because they are related to processing well bore data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Chace with Teague and Time, because Chace discloses "[0046]… measurements from the neutron tool 23 and the acoustic tool 37 are compared to evaluate the casing 18 and/or the cement 20. For example, a cement bond log is compared to a silicon activation count rate log to identify defective portions or bad bonds in the cement", and as a result, Chace reports "[0051]… utilization of both the acoustic log 60 and the pulsed neutron log… provides a more accurate identification of actual defective cement portions".
As to claim 2, Teague discloses identifying the set of characteristics associated with a first dataset that was acquired during operation of a wellbore tool at a first wellbore (see "[0048]… data collected was from borehole tools deployed by logging-while-drilling"); and identifying a set of features of the first wellbore (see "[0021] U.S. Pat. No. 7,705,294 to Teague teaches an apparatus that measures backscattered x-rays from the inner layers of a borehole in selected radial directions, with the missing segment data being populated through movement of the apparatus through the borehole. The apparatus permits generation of data for a two-dimensional reconstruction of the well or borehole" – well known in the art).
As to claim 3, Teague discloses wherein the set of characteristics includes one or more values associated with a frequency (see "associated with a frequency" as "acoustic/ultrasonic", "[0040]… use the output of an x-ray-based borehole cement logging/mapping tool to inform the inversion model geometry used to invert the raw data collected by an acoustic/ultrasonic tool deployed to collect data within the same borehole").
As to claim 6, Teague discloses modifying one or more characteristics of the set of characteristics as part of the training of the computer model (see "[0046]… machine learning… to analyze the results of the inversion and quality index flags (produced from the inversion) to determine whether the three dimensional density model geometry adequately matches the anticipated results of the acoustic inversion—and to what degree other, alternative geometric model interpretations of the x-ray or neutron data would better fit the model behavior, thereby serving as an additional re-processing step for the ultrasound inversion"); and applying the computer model to the first dataset after modifying the one or more characteristics (see "[0044]… three-dimensional x-ray density logs [303] once pre-processed to create a voxelated three-dimensional density map of the cement as a function of depth [304], are enhanced by the accuracy or confidence-interval of which has been improved dramatically by automated/processed comparison with neutron-porosity logs. The result is an accurate model including actual cement geometries, three-dimensional density variations (corroborated with porosity data), and any casing or formation eccentricities computed for each depth interval").
As to claim 9, Teague discloses filtering data included in the first dataset to remove unwanted frequencies from the first dataset (see "[0024]… receiving acoustic cement evaluation data having a first parameterization. At least a portion of the entire acoustic cement evaluation data may be corrected to account for errors in the first parameterization, thereby obtaining corrected acoustic cement evaluation data").
As to claims 10-12, 15, and 18-20, these claims recite a computer readable storage medium and an apparatus comprising a memory and a processor for performing the method of claims 1-3, 6, and 9. Time discloses "tool consists of a training and a prediction tool integrated with the cased hole logging interpretation software" (see page 1, 3rd paragraph) for performing a method that teaches claims 1-3, 6, and 9. Therefore, claims 10-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Teague taken in view of Time in view of Chace as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Pingjun Guo, (Guo hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20140052376.
As to claim 4, Teague, Time, and Chace do not disclose, but Guo discloses wherein the set of characteristics includes a time value (see "[0004] Shown in FIG. 1 is a traditional cement bond tool (CBL). It has an acoustic transducer and two receivers located three and five feet from the transmitter, respectively. The 3 ft receiver records the amplitude of the acoustic signal and the 5 ft receiver records a variable density log (VDL), which is the pressure waveform data measured by the receivers. Typically, the 5 ft receiver may measure both amplitude and phase as a function of time. The variable density log, also called a microseismograph, is recorded and plotted as a function of time as each logging depth" – well known in the art) and a space value (see "[0038]… casing parameters are readily available in the well completion data", "[0031]… Sonic and density logs may be further analyzed with an integrated multi-physics analysis method to quantify density and thickness of casing and cement as well as to provide traditional cement bond logs").
Teague, Time, Chace, and Guo are analogous art because they are related to processing well bore data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Guo with Teague, Time, and Chace, because Guo discloses "[0031]… for evaluating cement quality in a wellbore completed with casing and cement… uses acoustic logs and nuclear density logs", and as a result, Guo reports: "[0040]… a quantitative analysis… provides a much more accurate interpretation of cement quality than traditional cement bond log interpretation which is qualitative and is subject to individual interpreter's observations. The final output 57 may also include the sonic amplitudes/attenuation curves, cement impedance curves and maps. Although not needed for a cement bond interpretation 60, the output… may be supplemented by neutron log results".
As to claim 5, Guo discloses wherein the set of wellbore features include one or more of a type of casing (see "[0038]… casing parameters are readily available in the well completion data", "[0031]… Sonic and density logs may be further analyzed with an integrated multi-physics analysis method to quantify density and thickness of casing and cement as well as to provide traditional cement bond logs").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Guo with Teague and Time, see supra.
As to claim 7, Teague discloses applying the computer model to the first dataset after the computer model is trained to generate a second set of results (see "[0046]… machine learning… to analyze the results of the inversion and quality index flags (produced from the inversion) to determine whether the three dimensional density model geometry adequately matches the anticipated results of the acoustic inversion—and to what degree other, alternative geometric model interpretations of the x-ray or neutron data would better fit the model behavior, thereby serving as an additional re-processing step for the ultrasound inversion"); generating a bond map of the first wellbore from the second set of results (see "[0044]… The three-dimensional x-ray density logs [303] once pre-processed to create a voxelated three-dimensional density map of the cement as a function of depth [304], are enhanced by the accuracy or confidence-interval of which has been improved dramatically by automated/processed comparison with neutron-porosity logs. The result is an accurate model including actual cement geometries, three-dimensional density variations (corroborated with porosity data), and any casing or formation eccentricities computed for each depth interval"); and Guo discloses comparing the bond map of the first wellbore to data derived by applying an cement bonding measuring technique (see "[0040]… final output 57 may also include the sonic amplitudes/attenuation curves, cement impedance curves and maps… output… may be supplemented by neutron log results").
As to claim 8, Guo discloses performing an evaluation on data included in the first dataset; and modifying the first dataset based on the evaluation, wherein the modifying of the first dataset includes at least one of removing a first data point from or adding a second data point to the first dataset (see "[0007] U.S. patent application publication 2005/0234649 describes… detecting presence of gas behind casing using nuclear density and neutron porosity logs. The density log is first corrected by removing casing and cement effects" – well known in the art, "[0037]… input logs to the workflow are detector count rates recorded by a nuclear density tool 51 and waveform (pressure) data recorded by an acoustic tool 52… standard density processing algorithms… use raw detector count rates as input and produce formation density logs that are corrected for borehole effects such as casing, cement, and mud cake").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Guo with Teague and Time, see supra.
As to claims 13, 14, 16, and 17, these claims recite a computer readable storage medium and an apparatus comprising a memory and a processor for performing the method of claims 4, 5, 7, and 8. Time discloses "tool consists of a training and a prediction tool integrated with the cased hole logging interpretation software" (see page 1, 3rd paragraph) for performing a method that teaches claims 4, 5, 7, and 8. Therefore, claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 112, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 9, 2nd paragraph to page 10, next to last paragraph):
‘… This bond map may be provided to regulators that are responsible for overseeing the quality of a wellbore. Such regulators may authorize that a particular wellbore can be placed into service after reviewing the bond map." Specification at [0046]. Servicing the second wellbore based on the generated bond map of the second wellbore is a practical application that cannot be considered either a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"…
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures… In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document.… Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it"’.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the limitations "generating the bond map of the second wellbore from the results of applying the computer model to the second dataset, wherein generating the bond-map generation includes…“, they are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations. These limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. There is no elaboration of any special meanings for these amended limitations in the claims and Application description. See specification paragraph [0046]. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) and Independent claim 1, Step 2B supra).
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the rejection under 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art disclosures in the previous rejection fail to teach the newly added limitations. These features of Applicants' claims and arguments were newly added. The previous Office Action could not have pointed out disclosures of a limitation that was not claimed before. Independent claims are rejected over Teague in view of Time in view of Chace instead of Teague in view of Time, and Chace is newly cited. See rejection supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
Prosecution Insights