DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2023 and 06/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 500.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1-10 recite a system and, therefore, is a machine. Claims 11-20 recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A system for well log normalization, the system comprising:
one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain application log information, the application log information defining a set of application logs, the set of application logs including application mutable logs and application context logs, the application mutable logs to be changed in the well log normalization and the application context logs not to be changed in the well log normalization;
obtain reference log information, the reference log information defining a set of reference logs, the set of reference logs including reference mutable logs and reference context logs, the reference mutable logs corresponding to the application mutable logs and the reference context logs corresponding to the application context logs; and
generate a set of normalized application logs based on a multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs using the set of reference logs, the multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs changing the application mutable logs and not changing the application context logs in the set of normalized application logs.
The above underlined limitations normalizing a set of application logs based on a multivariate linear transformation amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “generate” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more physical processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “one or more physical processors” language, the claim encompasses manually multiplying a 4x4 matrix with the first and second rows representing the application context logs and the third and fourth rows representing the application mutable logs with a 4x4 transformation matrix with the first and second rows having an identity matrix such that the matrix transformation will not change the values of the application context logs and would only change the values of the application mutable logs and adding the matrix product to a bias vector with the first and second elements having a zero value such that adding by zero will not change the values of the application context logs to normalize the set of application logs using the set of reference logs that are used to derive the coefficients for the third and fourth rows of the transformation matrix and the third and fourth elements of the bias vector corresponding to the application mutable logs as disclosed in at least Figs. 4 and 6B and paragraphs [0042-0043, 0070-0074] using pen and paper. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) which states that “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” as an example of “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: obtain application log information, the application log information defining a set of application logs, the set of application logs including application mutable logs and application context logs; and obtain reference log information, the reference log information defining a set of reference logs, the set of reference logs including reference mutable logs and reference context logs. However, the additional element of “one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for executing machine-readable instructions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “obtain application log information, the application log information defining a set of application logs, the set of application logs including application mutable logs and application context logs” and “obtain reference log information, the reference log information defining a set of reference logs, the set of reference logs including reference mutable logs and reference context logs” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering and are also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the data gathering to a particular type of data (i.e., application log information defining a set of application logs including application mutable logs and application context logs, and reference log information defining a set of reference logs including reference mutable logs and reference context logs). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, 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, the additional element of “one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for executing machine-readable instructions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “obtain application log information, the application log information defining a set of application logs, the set of application logs including application mutable logs and application context logs” and “obtain reference log information, the reference log information defining a set of reference logs, the set of reference logs including reference mutable logs and reference context logs” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering and are also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the data gathering to a particular type of data (i.e., application log information defining a set of application logs including application mutable logs and application context logs, and reference log information defining a set of reference logs including reference mutable logs and reference context logs). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claims 2-10 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Further, claim 2 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein the multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs is adjusted based on difference between a probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs and a probability distribution of the set of reference logs”; claim 3 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein the set of application logs is represented within a data matrix for the multivariate linear transformation”; claim 4 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein adjustment of the multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs includes change in values of a transformation matrix and/or a bias vector that reduces the difference between the probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs and the probability distribution of the set of reference logs”; claim 5 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein components of the probability distribution of the set of reference logs are reweighted to increase approximation of the probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs”; claim 6 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein reweighting of the components of the probability distribution of the set of reference logs to increase approximation of the probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs includes setting a weight of a given component of the probability distribution of the set of reference logs to zero to remove the given component based on a corresponding component not existing within the probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs”; claim 7 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein the difference between the probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs and the probability distribution of the set of reference logs is quantified using Jensen-Shannon divergence”; claim 8 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein the probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs and the probability distribution of the set of reference logs are represented as sums of multiple elementary probability density functions”; and claim 9 recites further details of the abstract idea of the multivariate linear transformation “wherein the probability distribution of the set of normalized application logs and the probability distribution of the set of reference logs are represented as the sums of multiple elementary probability density functions using Gaussian mixture modeling” which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular claims 2-9 do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, claim 10 recites the following additional elements: wherein the application log information is derived from a single application well and the reference log information is derived from one or more reference wells. However, the additional elements of “wherein the application log information is derived from a single application well and the reference log information is derived from one or more reference wells” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering and is also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the data gathering step to a particular source of data (i.e., application log information that is derived from a single application well and reference log information that is derived from one or more reference wells). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 10 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, 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, the additional elements of “wherein the application log information is derived from a single application well and the reference log information is derived from one or more reference wells” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering and is also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the data gathering step to a particular source of data (i.e., application log information that is derived from a single application well and reference log information that is derived from one or more reference wells). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 11-20, they are directed to a method practiced by the system of claims 1-10 respectively. All steps performed by the method of claims 11-20 would be practiced by the system of claims 1-10 respectively. Claims 1-10 analysis applies equally to claims 11-20 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Maus et al. (US 20200378248 A1) is the closest prior art found. Maus discloses a system and a method for well log normalization comprising one or more processor having access to a memory media that stores instructions executable by the one or more processors to: obtain application log information from a subject or target well, the application log information defining a set of application logs including application mutable logs and application context logs such as gamma ray emission measurements, hardness measurements, neutron density measurements, resistivity measurements, ductility measurements, electrical conductivity measurements, porosity measurements, density measurements, confined compressive strength measurements, and sonic velocity measurements, the application mutable logs to be changed in the log well normalization; obtain reference log information (master reference log data), the reference log information defining a set of reference logs including reference mutable logs corresponding to the application mutable logs and reference context logs corresponding to the application context logs; and generating a set of normalized application logs by applying a linear transformation on the set of application logs using the set of reference logs to normalize the set of application logs to the set of reference logs. Further, Maus discloses that the normalized output data is calculated using
L
o
=
s
c
a
l
e
*
L
i
+
o
f
f
s
e
t
where the offset and scale factor are calculated based on the mean and standard deviation for the set of application logs and the set of reference logs. However, Maus fails to disclose that the application context logs are not to be changed in the well log normalization and that the linear transformation is a multivariate linear transformation that does not change the application context logs. Therefore, Maus fails to explicitly teach or suggest “the application context logs not to be changed in the well log normalization” and “generate a set of normalized application logs based on a multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs using the set of reference logs, the multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs changing the application mutable logs and not changing the application context logs in the set of normalized application logs” as recited in claims 1 and 11. Maus is cited in the IDS submitted on 06/05/2024.
McCauley et al. (US 11867052 B1) discloses a system and a method for well log normalization comprising one or more processor configured to execute program instructions stored in a memory to obtain application log information from a current well such as gamma log data to be changed in the log well normalization; obtain reference log information from an offset well, the reference log information corresponding to the application log information; calibrating the data from the current well to the log data from the offset well and correlating the tools data from the current well using a linear normalization of the form
y
=
m
x
+
b
where
y
is the normalized log value,
m
is a multiplier repressing an increase or decrease variance of log data,
x
is the raw log value, and
b
is the data shift or the amount to add to or subtract from all raw log values. However, McCauley fails to disclose that the application log information includes application context logs that are not to be changed in the well log normalization and that the linear transformation is a multivariate linear transformation that does not change the application context logs. Therefore, McCauley fails to explicitly teach or suggest “the application context logs not to be changed in the well log normalization” and “generate a set of normalized application logs based on a multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs using the set of reference logs, the multivariate linear transformation of the set of application logs changing the application mutable logs and not changing the application context logs in the set of normalized application logs” as recited in claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 (571)272-5767