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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, claims 1 and 11 are currently amended; claims 2-10 and 12-20 are original.
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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the set of application logs” in lines 21 and 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A set of application logs in line 3-4 has been deleted in the amendment. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as the well logs instead. Claims 3-4 and 11-14 recite a similar limitation and are rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-10 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claims 3-6 inherit the same deficiency as claim 2 by reason of dependence. Claims 4-6 inherit the same deficiency as claim 3 by reason of dependence. Claims 5-6 inherit the same deficiency as claim 4 by reason of dependence. Claims 12-20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 11 by reason of dependence. Claims 13-16 inherit the same deficiency as claim 12 by reason of dependence. Claims 14-16 inherit the same deficiency as claim 13 by reason of dependence. Claims 15-16 inherit the same deficiency as claim 14 by reason of dependence.
The term “versatility” in claim 1 is a relative (subjective) term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “versatility” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the phrase “increases versatility of the normalization” is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b), IV for more information. Claim 11 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-10 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claims 12-20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 11 by reason of dependence.
Claim 10 recites “the application log information” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Application log information in line 3 has been deleted in the amendment. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as the well logs instead. Claim 20 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein inclusion of the application context logs and the reference context logs for normalization of the application mutable logs increases accuracy and versatility of the normalization of the application mutable logs and improves noise removal for well log measurement”. This limitation lacks written description support because the specification fails to discloses that the inclusion of the application context logs and the reference context logs for normalization of the application mutable logs increases accuracy and versatility of the normalization of the application mutable logs and improves noise removal for well log measurement. Paragraph [0088] discloses in part “The multivariate linear transformation technique of the present disclosure results in more accurate and more versatile normalization of well logs than univariate approaches.” Therefore, the more accurate and more versatile normalization is a result of using multivariate linear transformation and not a result of the inclusion of the application context logs and the reference context logs. Furthermore, paragraph [0075] discloses in part “By including context logs in the matrix for multivariate linear transformation, more complex transformation of application logs may be enabled in the normalization. Inclusion of the context logs enables apparent non-linearities in the transformation when viewed in a 20 bivariate plots of mutable logs, since the transformation depends on "hidden" context logs.” However, a more complex transformation is not equivalent and does not inherently result in an increase in accuracy and versatility of the normalization of the application mutable logs and an improvement in noise removal for well log measurement. Claim 11 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-10 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claims 12-20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 11 by reason of dependence.
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:
take measurement of well logs during well bore operations, wherein wellbore conditions and/or well bore operation factors during the measurement inject noise into at least some of the well logs, further wherein the well logs include 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, wherein;
the application mutable logs include noise from the wellbore conditions and/or the well bore operation factors which cannot be removed based on the wellbore conditions and/or the wellbore operation factors; and
the application context logs do not include noise from the wellbore conditions and/or the wellbore operation factors or include noise from the wellbore conditions and/or the operation factors that is removable without 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, wherein inclusion of the application context logs and the reference context logs for normalization of the application mutable logs increases accuracy and versatility of the normalization of the application mutable logs and improves noise removal for well log measurement.
The above underlined limitations normalizing well 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 well 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: take measurement of well logs during well bore operations, wherein wellbore conditions and/or well bore operation factors during the measurement inject noise into at least some of the well logs, further wherein the well logs include 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 “take measurement of well logs during well bore operations, wherein wellbore conditions and/or well bore operation factors during the measurement inject noise into at least some of the well logs, further wherein the well logs include 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 step to a particular type of data (i.e., well logs comprising application mutable logs and application context logs where the well logs include noise, 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 “take measurement of well logs during well bore operations, wherein wellbore conditions and/or well bore operation factors during the measurement inject noise into at least some of the well logs, further wherein the well logs include 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 step to a particular type of data (i.e., well logs comprising application mutable logs and application context logs where the well logs include noise, 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. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are the same reasons provided in the non-final office action submitted 03/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments made and Applicant’s arguments, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks page 11-12, filed on 06/26/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
A.) under step 2A prong One, the claims do not recite a mental process because the human mind cannot perform taking measurements of well logs during wellbore operations, with well bore conditions and/or well bore operation factors injecting noise into at least some of the well logs. Further, the claims just because some of the claim limitations recite mathematical relationships does not mean that the independent claims are directed to mathematical concepts.
Response: Examiner agrees in part. Although examiner has not considered the step of taking measurements a mental step, this step is recited at a high-level of generality and encompasses a human reading a sensor value to take measurements of well logs which can practically be performed by a human. Furthermore, examiner agrees with Applicant’s admission that the claim mathematical relationships. Therefore, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
B. under step 2A prong Two, the claims provides an improvement in technology of well log measurements/noise removal from well logs because the claimed normalization process increases the accuracy and versatility of well log normalization and improves noise removal for well log measurement. The inclusion of the different types of well logs (mutable logs and context logs) enables more complex transformation of mutable logs and enables well logs to be normalized even when the well logs only cover a subset of depths covered by the reference logs and cited paragraphs [0002-0003, 0030-0033, 0049-0053 and 0075]).
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0088] discloses that the use of multivariate linear transformation instead of univariate approaches provides the alleged improvement of a more accurate and more versatile normalization. Furthermore a more complex math (i.e., linear transformation) is still a math. Therefore, the alleged improvement appears to be an improvement in the abstract idea itself (more complex transformation) rather than an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a), II “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” See also MPEP 2106.05(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”
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.
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
Prosecution Insights