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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-20, 22-25, and 28-34 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings
As discussed in a previous action, the drawings filed on 02/17/23 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For reasons discussed in a previous action, claims 15-20, 22-25, and 28-34 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The second paragraph of claim 15 states:
A) carrying out measurements, relative to at least the portion of the at least one well drilled through the underground formation with the measurements being from at least one of a well log and an image of at least one core sample taken from the at least one well
There appears to be a grammatical informality, in the form of a lack of a comma.
The examiner interprets the limitation to state:
A) carrying out measurements, relative to at least the portion of the at least one well drilled through the underground formation, with the measurements being from at least one of a well log and an image of at least one core sample taken from the at least one well (emphasis mine)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-20, 22-25, and 28-34 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 15 , third paragraph, states:
B) applying classification methods to the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well and determining first electrofacies classifications of the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well, the classification methods being unsupervised classification methods, or, if learning information is available for at least one subset of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well by using supervised classification methods trained on the learning information
This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear which clauses modify which other clauses. If the clauses are defined by comma breaks, the limitation contains three major clauses:
applying classification methods to the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well and determining first electrofacies classifications of the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well,
the classification methods being unsupervised classification methods, or,
if learning information is available for at least one subset of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well by using supervised classification methods trained on the learning information
The third clause, standing alone, does not appear to be a grammatically correct phrase. The examiner was uncertain if that clause should have included an extra comma and/or different wording, such as:
if learning information is available for at least one subset of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well, the classification methods being
Under such an interpretation, the third clause would modify the second clause, where the second and third clauses represent alternatives to each other. The second and third clauses read together would therefore state, “the classification methods being unsupervised classification methods, or, if learning information is available for at least one subset of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well, the classification methods being supervised classification methods trained on the learning information.” Clauses 2 and 3 would then collectively modify clause 1.
However, the third clause could also be interpreted as modifying the first clause, such that the first and third clause read together would be, “applying classification methods to the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well and determining first electrofacies classifications of the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well, if learning information is available for at least one subset of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well by using supervised classification methods trained on the learning information.” This makes more sense grammatically, as it sets up the third clause to serve as a conditional modifier for the first clause. However, such an interpretation also creates some confusion as to the purpose of the second clause and what that second clause modifies.
Claim 15 also includes the following limitation:
C) among the first electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well, selecting a first reference electrofacies classification according to a criterion for selecting the classification of the first electrofacies classifications exhibiting at least a smallest number of class changes along at least the portion of the at least one well drilled through the underground formation, and selecting a portion of the first reference electrofacies classification
This limitation is considered indefinite because the limitation contains a lot of words, but it is not clear what parts of the limitation modify which other parts of the limitation. As an example, please consider the above limitation broken up into the various sub-parts:
C) among the first electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well,
selecting a first reference electrofacies classification according to a criterion
for selecting the classification of the first electrofacies classifications
exhibiting at least a smallest number of class changes along at least the portion of the at least one well drilled through the underground formation,
and selecting a portion of the first reference electrofacies classification
It is unclear if the final four bullet points are all meant to modify the sub-part of the first bullet point, or if each bullet point is meant to modify the last word of the preceding bullet point. The current limitation reads like a run-on sentence, where the meaning of the sentence is difficult to ascertain. It’s also not clear whether there should be additional commas, such as “among the first electrofacies classifications, of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well …”
In other words, assume that the core concept being represented in this limitation is that among the first electrofacies classifications, there will be a selection of a first electrofacies classification according to a specific criterion. Is the phrase, “for selecting the classification of the first electrofacies classifications” meant to modify the type of criterion used, or is it meant to define the purpose of the overall selection? Similarly, is the phrase, “exhibiting at least a smallest number of class changes along at least the portion of the at least one well drilled through the underground formation” meant to define the criterion for selection, or is it meant to specify that the selection only happens among the sub-group of first electrofacies classifications that happen to exhibit at least a smallest number of class changes …?
Finally, it’s not clear if the final part of, “and selecting a portion of the first reference electrofacies classification” is a separate selection from the selection of the first reference electrofacies classification, or if it represents a sub-step to that selection.
Similarly, limitation D) also reads like a run-on sentence, where it is not entirely clear which parts of the limitation modify which other parts of the limitation.
The limitation currently states:
D) applying second classification methods to the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well and determining second electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well with the second classification methods being supervised classification methods trained on the portion of the first reference electrofacies classification
The limitation could be broken down as such:
D) applying second classification methods to the measurements
relative to at least the portion of the at least one well
and determining second electrofacies classifications of the measurements
relative to at least the portion of the at least one well
with the second classification methods being supervised classification methods
trained on the portion of the first reference electrofacies classification
Here, there are similar questions, like in limitation C), as to which bullet points modify which other bullet points.
The limitation could also be broken down as such:
D) applying second classification methods to the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well
and determining second electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well
with the second classification methods being supervised classification methods trained on the portion of the first reference electrofacies classification
The examiner suggests using commas to delineate breaks, or separating out different clauses that represent different ideas, into their own separate limitations.
Similarly, limitation E) discloses:
E) determining the electrofacies interpretation of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well from the second electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well, with the determination of the electrofacies interpretation of the measurements being performed using an ensemble learning method, wherein the ensemble learning method is selected from among the following methods: majority voting, boosting, bootstrap aggregating or bagging, Bayes optimal classifier, stacking, and bucket of models
The first part of that limitation discloses two instances of the phrase “relative to”:
relative to at least the portion of the at least one well from the second electrofacies classifications of the measurements
relative to at least the portion of the at least one well
It is unclear whether both clauses are meant to modify “determining the electrofacies interpretation of the measurements,” or if the second “relative to” clause is meant to modify the first “relative to” clause.
All other claims depend on independent claim 15 and are also rejected, as a result of their dependency.
In addition, many of the dependent claims are also rejected because they appear to lack antecedent basis for some of their limitations.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and discloses, “the at least one well log.” This appears to lack antecedent basis. While claim 15, lines 7-8 state, “from at least one of a well log and an image …” it does not appear to disclose “at least one well log …” “At least one of a well log” is not the same as “at least one well log …”
Claim 19 depends on claim 15 and discloses, “the second supervised classification methods.” This appears to lack antecedent basis. Limitation B) in claim 15 mentions “by using supervised classification methods”. Limitation D) mentions, “with the second classification methods being supervised classification methods …” However, neither of these instances specifically use the language of a “first supervised classification methods” or “second supervised classification methods.” It’s not clear if the applicant is interpreting the supervised classification methods in limitation B) as being “first supervised classification methods” and the classification methods in limitation D) as being “second supervised classification methods.” If this is the case, it should be made clearer in the claims.
Similarly, claim 20 discloses, “the first and second supervised classification methods.” This appears to lack antecedent basis. Limitation B) in claim 15 mentions “by using supervised classification methods”. Limitation D) mentions, “with the second classification methods being supervised classification methods …” However, neither of these instances specifically use the language of a “first supervised classification methods” or “second supervised classification methods.” It’s not clear if the applicant is interpreting the supervised classification methods in limitation B) as being “first supervised classification methods” and the classification methods in limitation D) as being “second supervised classification methods.” If this is the case, it should be made clearer in the claims.
Claim 28 depends on claim 15 and discloses, “the exploitation scheme of the fluid …” This appears to lack antecedent basis. Claim 15, line 3 states, “which is used to exploit a fluid …” However, the examiner did not find the term “exploitation scheme of the fluid” in claim 15. It is not clear that these are the same thing.
Claim 29 depends on claim 16 and discloses, “wherein the at least one unsupervised classification method of the unsupervised classifications methods.” This appears to lack antecedent basis. Claim 16 does not mention unsupervised classification. Claim 16 does depend on claim 15, which discussed unsupervised classification in limitation B) by stating, “the classification methods being unsupervised classification methods.” However, the examiner did not find the phrase, “the at least one unsupervised classification method …”
Claim 30 depends on claim 17 and discloses, “wherein the at least one unsupervised classification method …” Claim 17 discloses, “wherein the unsupervised classification methods.” However, the examiner did not find mention of the “at least one” unsupervised classification method.
Claims 31-34 disclose, “wherein the at least one supervised classification method.” As discussed above, claim 15 discloses supervised classification methods in limitations B) and D). However, neither limitation discloses “at least one” supervised classification method.
Please also note that it is not entirely clear whether the supervised classification methods in limitation B) are the same or different as the supervised classification methods in limitation D). Clarification in the claims is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note - Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15, as amended, discloses the below limitations, which when considered with the claims as a whole, were not found, taught, suggested, or disclosed by the prior art. Please note that the claims cannot be allowed until the above 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection is overcome.
B) applying classification methods to the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well and determining first electrofacies classifications of the measurements from at least the portion of the at least one well, the classification methods being unsupervised classification methods, or, if learning information is available for at least one subset of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well by using supervised classification methods trained on the learning information
C) among the first electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well, selecting a first reference electrofacies classification according to a criterion for selecting the classification of the first electrofacies classifications exhibiting at least a smallest number of class changes along at least the portion of the at least one well drilled through the underground formation, and selecting a portion of the first reference electrofacies classification
D) applying second classification methods to the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well and determining second electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well with the second classification methods being supervised classification methods trained on the portion of the first reference electrofacies classification
E) determining the electrofacies interpretation of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well from the second electrofacies classifications of the measurements relative to at least the portion of the at least one well, with the determination of the electrofacies interpretation of the measurements being performed using an ensemble learning method, wherein the ensemble learning method is selected from among the following methods: majority voting, boosting, bootstrap aggregating or bagging, Bayes optimal classifier, stacking, and bucket of models
After further consideration, the examiner determined that the claims, as currently amended, represented significant detail that, as a whole, were not found, taught, disclosed, or suggested by the prior art. Although the art may have taught elements of the claims, in a vacuum, the examiner could not find proper and reasonable motivation to combine piecemeal references into a cohesive whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US PgPub 20220065096) discloses core-level high resolution petrophysical characterization method.
Burmester et al (US PgPub 20150241591) discloses systems, methods, and computer medium to produce efficient, consistent, and high-confidence image-based electrofacies analysis in stratigraphic interpretations across multiple wells.
Calleri (US Pat 12736517) discloses geological sample interpretation through systematic analysis of colour, elemental data and electromagnetic observation.
Bize-Forest et al (US Pat 11814931) discloses machine-learning for sedimentary facies prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 09/30/26
