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 .
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-21 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including: “generating a synthetic formation based on one or more imaging properties; simulating a tool response of an imaging tool operating according to one or more operational parameters to image the synthetic formation to generate a synthetic tool response; identifying a change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties and the one or more operational parameters; simulating the tool response of the imaging tool operating according to the change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties and the one or more operational parameters to generate a modified synthetic tool response; and reproducing a representation of the modified synthetic tool response to show an effect of the change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties and the one or more operational parameters on the tool response of the imaging tool.”
Claim 20 recites abstract limitations, including: “generate a synthetic formation based on one or more imaging properties; simulate a tool response of an imaging tool operating according to one or more operational parameters to image the synthetic formation to generate a synthetic tool response; identify a change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties; simulate the tool response of the imaging tool operating according to the change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties to generate a modified synthetic tool response; access actual measurements made by the imaging tool in imaging a real formation; and compare the actual measurements to simulated measurements included in either or both the synthetic tool response and the modified synthetic tool response to aid in the interpretation of the tool response.”
Claim 21 recites abstract limitations, including: “generate a synthetic formation based on one or more imaging properties; simulate a tool response of an imaging tool operating according to one or more operational parameters to image the synthetic formation to generate a synthetic tool response; identify a change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties and the one or more operational parameters; simulate the tool response of the imaging tool operating according to the change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties and the one or more operational parameters to generate a modified synthetic tool response; and reproduce a representation of the modified synthetic tool response to show an effect of the change to at least one of the one or more imaging properties and the one or more operational parameters on the tool response of the imaging tool.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites no additional elements.
Claims 20 and 21 recite the additional elements of: a processor and a computer-readable storage medium.
The processor and the computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the processor and the computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-19 further recite:
Claim 2: the imaging tool is one of an oil-based mud electromagnetic imaging tool, a water-based mud electromagnetic imaging tool, an acoustic imaging tool, or a density imaging tool;
Claim 3: the synthetic formation is generated by a formation model generator that is a random or pseudo-random generator that generates random or pseudo-random variations on the one or more imaging properties and the one or more imaging properties comprise at least one of the formation properties of formation resistivity and complex formation relative permittivity;
Claim 4: the synthetic formation is generated based on data from reference logs;
Claim 5: the synthetic formation is generated based on input from a user;
Claim 6: the tool response of the imaging tool is simulated by a forward model that is run on-demand using a simulation code;
Claim 7: the tool response of the imaging tool is simulated by a forward model that is applied based on previous simulation results for the imaging tool;
Claim 8: the tool response of the imaging tool is simulated by a forward model that is applied based on measured responses for the imaging tool at varying formation properties and a varying standoff;
Claim 9: the tool response of the imaging tool is simulated by a forward model and simulating the tool response to generate either the synthetic tool response or the modified synthetic tool response during a simulation further comprises: identifying a previous simulation result or measured response of the imaging tool associated with the simulation based on corresponding imaging properties and operational parameters used in generating the simulation; and generating the simulation based on either the previous simulation result or the measured response of the imaging tool associated with the simulation;
Claim 10: the tool response of the imaging tool is simulated by a forward model and simulating the tool response for either the synthetic formation or the modified synthetic formation during a simulation further comprises applying multidimensional interpolation to tool responses from known imaging properties to find corresponding tool responses at imaging properties used to generate the synthetic formation for the simulation;
Claim 11: identifying one or more additional imaging properties; and simulating the tool response of the imaging tool based on the one or more additional imaging properties to generate the modified synthetic tool response;
Claim 12: the one or more operational parameters comprise one of operating frequencies, logging speed, pad pressure, and pad-to-borehole curvature mismatch;
Claim 13: the one or more imaging properties comprise formation and borehole properties wherein the formation properties comprise at least one of varying formation resistivity, and varying formation permittivity, borehole properties comprise mud properties and standoff and the mud properties further comprise at least one of varying mud permittivity, varying mud resistivity, and varying mud oil-to-water ratio;
Claim 14: providing functionalities for performing image enhancement on either or both the synthetic tool response and modified synthetic tool response;
Claim 15: providing functionalities for performing quantitative estimation on either or both the synthetic tool response and modified synthetic tool response;
Claim 16: the quantitative estimation is performed through an inversion approach, a machine learning approach, or a hybrid machine learning and inversion approach;
Claim 17: comparing results of the one or more imaging properties obtained from quantitative estimation with the one or more imaging properties used in generating either or both the synthetic tool response and modified synthetic tool response to quantify an expected performance for either or both the change to the one or more imaging parameters and the change to the one or more operational parameters;
Claim 18: generating a quality indicator of either or both the synthetic tool response and the modified synthetic tool response based on a difference between results of the one or more imaging properties obtained from quantitative estimation with the one or more formation imaging properties used in generating either or both the synthetic tool response and modified synthetic tool response due to either or both the change to the one or more imaging properties and the change to the one or more operational parameters; and
Claim 19: comparing results of the one or more imaging properties obtained from quantitative estimation with the one or more imaging properties used in generating either or both the synthetic tool response and modified synthetic tool response to quantify an expected performance for a given level of measurement noise
which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are allowable over the prior art but are rejected under 101 as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or make obvious the details related to identifying changes of the at least one or more image properties and operational parameters and then simulating a tool response of an imaging tool using the changes in order to generate a modified synthetic tool response in a generated synthetic formation in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osypov (US 2024/0069228) discloses creating images from seismic data (Abstract).
San Martin (US 2018/0203150) discloses generating a model from images (¶ [0045]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights