DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on December 9, 2025.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on December 9, 2025 have been entered.
The specification has been amended.
Claims 1, 14 and 16 have been amended.
Claim 15 has been canceled.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 9), filed on 12/09/2025, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the specification addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 9-12), filed on 12/09/2025, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 9-10) that claim 1 has been amended to explicitly recite that the image arrays are 2D and are generated using 1D plots of dipmeter logging data. Claim 1 recites a technical, unitary, and inventive method for converting the dipmeter log curves to borehole image logs, which increases the accuracy of identifying dip data from measurements of dipmeter tools compared to existing systems. Specification at para. [0018]. Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
These arguments are not persuasive.
First, the examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claimed invention, when considered as a whole, recites collecting data (e.g., dipmeter logging data, see specification at [0020]) and transforming the data using mathematical concepts (see specification at [0022]-[0025], [0039]-[0040]), while merely appending extra-solution activities (e.g., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see specification at [0018]).
Regarding the argument about claim 1 reciting that the image arrays are 2D and are generated using 1D plots of dipmeter logging data, the examiner submits that transforming data (i.e., 1D plots of dipmeter logging data) into a new form of data (i.e., 2D image arrays) does recite an abstract idea, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (see specification at [0022]), and as explained in the MPEP: “For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding the argument about Claim 1 reciting a technical, unitary, and inventive method for converting the dipmeter log curves to borehole image logs, which increases the accuracy of identifying dip data from measurements of dipmeter tools compared to existing systems, the examiner submits that as described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence: “Even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula or detailed mental process), the Court has held that a claim may not preempt that judicial exception” (see “III. Update on Certain Areas of the USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Applicable to AI Inventions”, section “A. Evaluation of Whether a Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception (Step 2A)”).
Applicant also argues (p. 10) that claim 1 is not merely directed to mathematical concepts, or limitations to the particular field or applications of a mathematical concept. Even if mathematical concepts are a significant part of the claimed invention, claims that rely on “a known mathematical equation” do not lose eligibility because “several steps of the process [use that] mathematical equation.” Research Corp. Tech v. Microsoft Corp. 627F.3d 859, 869 (Dec. 8, 2010), citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner submits that the rejection was based on evaluating the claims using the test for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) (see rejection below).
Applicant further argues (p. 10-11) that Similar to the halftoning technique of Research Corp., claim 1 recites a technical and inventive method for converting images, further including decomposing the one or more photo images to one or more color components of a color matrix and generating one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix. For example, the Federal Circuit found nothing abstract in claims “for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask.” Research Corp. 627 F.3d at 868. For similar, reasons claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea because claim recites similar subject matter directed to generating one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix decomposed from one or more photo images. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, such as a mathematical concept.
These arguments are not persuasive.
First, the examiner submits that the claims in Research Corp. Techs v. Microsoft were directed to an improvement to the computer technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), whereas the current application merely uses a computer as a tool to facilitate the application of the judicial exception (see specification at [0015], [0046]), which as indicated in the current guidance: “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)).
Additionally, the examiner submits that “generating one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix decomposed from one or more photo images” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations) to manipulate data (see specification at [0025], [0039]-[0040]) as explained in the current guidance: “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an abstract idea)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Moreover, applicant argues (p. 11) that amended claim 1 is not limited to mathematical concepts because amended claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept, such as a mathematical formula or calculation … amended claim 1 does not recite mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations similar to Example 38 and in contrast to Example 41. Therefore, amended claim 1 is not limited to mathematical concepts. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner submits that as indicated in the current guidance: “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, p. 4, section “iii. “Mathematical Calculations””, par. 1 ).
Furthermore, applicant argues (p. 11-12) that Assuming arguendo that claim 1 is directed to an “abstract idea” (a position that is not conceded), it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to prong two of the revised Step 2A of the MPEP subject matter eligibility that amended claim 1 recites operations that provide a “practical application” of a Judicial Exception … Claim 1 recites a method that obviates the need for these technology complex tools, but provides the resolution and accuracy required to identify angular dipping of sedimentary layers, textural changes of the sedimentary layers at a dip, types of the sedimentary layers around the dip, and deformations of the sedimentary layers. Specification, para. [0018]. Existing systems rely on either complex tools or sacrifice resolution and accuracy. Therefore, amended claim 1 recites an improvement to dipmeter tools and use thereof. Accordingly, amended claim recites a practical application to the alleged judicial exception.
These arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument about claim 1 reciting a practical application by providing the resolution and accuracy required to identify angular dipping of sedimentary layers, textural changes of the sedimentary layers at a dip, types of the sedimentary layers around the dip, and deformations of the sedimentary layers, the examiner submits that as explained in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility: “Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two” (p. 11) and “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (p. 13).
Regarding the argument about claim 1 reciting an improvement to dipmeter tools and use thereof, the examiner submits that the dipmeter tool is not recited in claim 1 and that, in general, the dipmeter tool is not improved but instead it is used for extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering; see specification at [0020]), and as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Also, applicant argues (p. 12) that When viewing the ordered elements of amended claim 1 as a whole, claim 1 at least recites significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. That is, amended claim 1 is a combination of elements including generating one or more two-dimensional (2D) image arrays using one dimensional (1D) plots of dipmeter logging data characterizing dipmeter log curves; converting the one or more image arrays into one or more photo images; decomposing the one or more photo images to one or more color components of a color matrix; and generating one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix. This combination of elements is employed to generate borehole image logs without complex tools and is performed with a combination of steps that is significantly more than well-known, conventional, or routine. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that amended claim 1, as well as claims 2-8 depending therefrom, are patent eligible. Additionally, independent claim 9 and amended independent claim 14 recite similar subject matter to amended claim 1, such that claim 9 and 14 are also patent eligible for similar reasons. Similarly, claims 10-13 and 16-20 depending therefrom are also patent eligible for similar reasons.
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner submits that, as indicated above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claimed invention, when considered as a whole, recites collecting data (e.g., dipmeter logging data, see specification at [0020]) and transforming the data using mathematical concepts (see specification at [0022]-[0025], [0039]-[0040]), while merely appending extra-solution activities (e.g., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see specification at [0018]).
Furthermore, the examiner submits that applicant argued features correspond to the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) and as indicated in the MPEP: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Moreover, the examiner submits that as explained by the current guidance: “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher’s discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.”). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original)” (see MPEP 2106.04).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “converting the one or more image arrays into one or more photo images” should read “converting the one or more 2D image arrays into one or more photo images” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 2, further comprising smoothing the one or more 2D image arrays” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “generate one or more image arrays using the dipmeter logging data” should read “generate one or more image arrays using [[the]] dipmeter logging data” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “a dip data module, implemented by the at least one processor, to determine dip data using at least one of the borehole image logs” should read “a dip data module, implemented by the at least one processor, to determine dip data using at least one of the one or more borehole image logs” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The system of claim 14, wherein the one or more color components of the color matrix include a grayscale component, and wherein the one or more borehole image logs are one or more oriented borehole image logs, and wherein the image processing module is configured to cause the processor to:” should read “The system of claim 14, wherein the one or more color components of the color matrix include a grayscale component, and wherein the one or more borehole image logs are one or more oriented borehole image logs, and wherein the image processing module is configured to cause the at least one processor to:” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The system of claim 16, wherein the image processing module is configured to cause the processor to:” should read “The system of claim 16, wherein the image processing module is configured to cause the at least one processor to:” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The system of claim 16, wherein the image processing module is configured to cause the processor to:” should read “The system of claim 16, wherein the image processing module is configured to cause the at least one processor to:” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The system of claim 16, wherein the dip data module is configured to cause the processor to:” should read “The system of claim 16, wherein the dip data module is configured to cause the at least one processor to:” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The system of claim 19, wherein the dip data module is configured to cause the processor to:” should read “The system of claim 19, wherein the dip data module is configured to cause the at least one processor to:” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “generating one or more two-dimensional (2D) image arrays using one dimensional (1D) plots of dipmeter logging data characterizing dipmeter log curves” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data (see specification at [0022]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “converting the one or more image arrays into one or more photo images” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data (see specification at [0023]-[0024]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “decomposing the one or more photo images to one or more color components of a color matrix” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data (see specification at [0025]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “generating one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data (see specification at [0025], [0039]-[0040]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“A method for converting dipmeter logs to borehole image logs” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
Add extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., converting dipmeter logs to borehole image logs), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
add extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity …Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity … Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claims 9 and 14 are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 3-6, 8, 10-12, 16-17 and 19), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., using a data type or source; data outputting) (Claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are distinguished from the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Sung (US 20150279093 A1) discloses:
A method for converting images to borehole image logs (Fig. 1, item 100; [0002], [0031]: methods for converting well core sample photo image into formation image log is presented), the method comprising:
decomposing the one or more photo images to one or more color components of a color matrix (Fig. 1, item 106; [0036]: core sample photo image is decomposed into color numerical arrays (see also [0006])); and
generating one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix (Fig. 1, item 108; [0039]: the color numerical arrays are transformed into a formation image log (see also [0007])).
Di Santo (US 20200265615 A1) discloses:
“Well log data may be used in well log operations by facilitating the identification of hydrogen carbon deposits. More specifically, the well log data may be used to generate visual representations. Aspects of the present disclosure relate to generating a color composite image based on multiple types of well log data and transforming the well log data into a color space. In further embodiments, the color composite image may be modified and/or objects within the color composite image may be identified” (Abstract: borehole images are transformed and combined into a color composite image).
Hepp (GB 1468351 A) discloses:
“This invention relates generally to techniques used in dipmeter well logging, and more particularly to new techniques for automatically processing dip and azimuth measurements to produce more useful three-dimensional representation of subsurface formations” (p. 1, col. 1, par. 2: dipmeter well logging is employed to enhance subsurface formation representations).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic text):
“A method for converting dipmeter logs to borehole image logs, the method comprising:
generating one or more two-dimensional (2D) image arrays using one dimensional (1D) plots of dipmeter logging data characterizing dipmeter log curves;
converting the one or more image arrays into one or more photo images”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 9.
Sung (US 20150279093 A1) discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 8, item 806 – ‘memory’) storing machine-readable instructions ([0055]), which, when executed by a processor (Fig. 8, item 805 – ‘processor’; [0047], [0054]: a computer system includes memory and processor capabilities for converting well core sample photo image into formation image log (see Fig. 1, item 100; [0002], [0031])), cause the processor to:
decompose the one or more photo images to one or more color components of a color matrix (Fig. 1, item 106; [0036]: core sample photo image is decomposed into color numerical arrays (see also [0006])); and
generate one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix (Fig. 1, item 108; [0039]: the color numerical arrays are transformed into a formation image log (see also [0007])).
Di Santo (US 20200265615 A1) discloses:
“Well log data may be used in well log operations by facilitating the identification of hydrogen carbon deposits. More specifically, the well log data may be used to generate visual representations. Aspects of the present disclosure relate to generating a color composite image based on multiple types of well log data and transforming the well log data into a color space. In further embodiments, the color composite image may be modified and/or objects within the color composite image may be identified” (Abstract: borehole images are transformed and combined into a color composite image).
Hepp (GB 1468351 A) discloses:
“This invention relates generally to techniques used in dipmeter well logging, and more particularly to new techniques for automatically processing dip and azimuth measurements to produce more useful three-dimensional representation of subsurface formations” (p. 1, col. 1, par. 2: dipmeter well logging is employed to enhance subsurface formation representations).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic text):
“generate one or more image arrays using dipmeter logging data;
convert the one or more image arrays into one or more photo images”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 14.
Sung (US 20150279093 A1) discloses/teaches:
A system (Fig. 8, item 800 – “exemplary distributed computer system”) comprising:
an image processing module, implemented by at least one processor (Fig. 8, item 805 – ‘processor’), configured to:
decompose the one or more photo images to one or more color components of a color matrix (Fig. 1, item 106; [0036]: core sample photo image is decomposed into color numerical arrays (see also [0006])); and
generate one or more borehole image logs using a first color component of the color matrix (Fig. 1, item 108; [0039]: the color numerical arrays are transformed into a formation image log (see also [0007])); and
a dip data module, implemented by the at least one processor (Fig. 8, item 805 – ‘processor’), to determine dip data using at least one of the borehole image logs (Fig. 1, items 106 and 108; [0036], [0039]: core sample photo image is decomposed into color numerical arrays (see also [0006]), which are transformed into a formation image log (see also [0007]), from which dip data can be obtained (see [0001])).
Di Santo (US 20200265615 A1) discloses:
“Well log data may be used in well log operations by facilitating the identification of hydrogen carbon deposits. More specifically, the well log data may be used to generate visual representations. Aspects of the present disclosure relate to generating a color composite image based on multiple types of well log data and transforming the well log data into a color space. In further embodiments, the color composite image may be modified and/or objects within the color composite image may be identified” (Abstract: borehole images are transformed and combined into a color composite image).
Hepp (GB 1468351 A) discloses:
“This invention relates generally to techniques used in dipmeter well logging, and more particularly to new techniques for automatically processing dip and azimuth measurements to produce more useful three-dimensional representation of subsurface formations” (p. 1, col. 1, par. 2: dipmeter well logging is employed to enhance subsurface formation representations).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic text):
“an image processing module, implemented by at least one processor, configured to:
generate one or more image arrays using the dipmeter logging data;
convert the one or more image arrays into one or more photo images”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 2-8, 10-13 and 16-20.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
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 LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights