DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
disposing an azimuthal borehole measurement tool into a borehole;
obtaining an azimuthal borehole image with the azimuthal borehole measurement tool;
running a pre-processing action on the azimuthal borehole image to obtain a smart gradient image;
running a sinusoidal pattern search action on the smart gradient image to form a raw dip of the azimuthal borehole image; and running a dip post-processing action to form a final dip, wherein dip post processing comprises at least symmetry, separation, or dip continuity.
Claim 11 recites a system comprising:
an azimuthal borehole measurement tool disposed in a borehole configured to obtain an azimuthal borehole image; and an information handling system configured to:
run a pre-processing action on the azimuthal borehole image to obtain a smart gradient image;
run a sinusoidal pattern search action on the smart gradient image to form a raw dip of the azimuthal borehole image; and
run a dip post-processing action to form a final dip.
and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, wherein dip post processing comprises at least symmetry, separation, or dip continuity.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “disposing an azimuthal borehole measurement tool into a borehole; obtaining an azimuthal borehole image with the azimuthal borehole measurement tool” (claim 11) “an azimuthal borehole measurement tool disposed in a borehole configured to obtain an azimuthal borehole image; and an information handling system configured to: run a pre-processing action on the azimuthal borehole image to obtain a smart gradient image” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claim 11) “an information handling system” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the information handling system are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kherroubi et al. [US Patent Number 10,121,261 B2] in view of He et al. [US 2018/0120477 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Kherroubi teaches a method comprising:
disposing an azimuthal borehole measurement tool into a borehole (The well-logging system 10 may be conveyed through a geological formation 14 via a wellbore 16. A downhole tool 12 may be conveyed on a cable 18 via a logging winch system 20 - C4L1-5);
obtaining an azimuthal borehole image with the azimuthal borehole measurement tool (block 72, the data processing system 28 may receive borehole image data that may have been acquired by the downhole tool 12 described above or by some other logging tool. The borehole image data may be provided in a similar fashion as the flat image - C5L45-64);
running a pre-processing action on the azimuthal borehole image to obtain a smart gradient image (at block 80, the data processing system 28 dequantizes the resulting borehole image. In one embodiment, when dequantizing the borehole image, the data processing system 28 may apply a Gaussian blur (σ) to the borehole image. Generally, the borehole image may include certain quantization or noise artifacts. These artifacts are due to the gradient direction of a quantized image not being uniformly distributed - C6L38-45) (use an image gradient, which can be computed with a finite difference scheme – C6L56-66) (image gradients field – C7L4-8);
running a sinusoidal pattern search action on the smart gradient image to form a raw dip of the azimuthal borehole image (blocks 84, 86, 88, C8L33-64, C9L8-18); and
running a dip post-processing action to form a final dip (block 90, determine if a sinusoid having the predetermined dip orientation is meaningful or actually present at a predetermined measured depth h. From this operation, the data processing system 28 may extract the individual dips from the borehole image – C9L18-31)).
While Kherroubi teaches the above limitations and determining one or more dip features (via a-contrario validation algorithm – C9L32-39), Kherroubi does not specifically disclose one or more dip features comprises symmetry, separation, or dip continuity.
However, He teaches a method and system for dip picking and zonation of highly deviated well images by determining one or more dip features comprising symmetry, separation, or dip continuity (Once the dips have been identified or marked on the borehole image 44, the processor 30 may compute (block 114) a symmetry probability (e.g., vertical symmetry probability) based on the orientation (e.g., inclination and/or azimuth) of the dip- 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kherroubi to further include determining additional dip features as taught by He for the purposes of quality checking the determined dip information to provide more accurate results for enhancing geological interpretations (He - 0005, 0053).
Regarding claim 2, Kherroubi teaches the pre-processing action comprises data quality control performs a quality check on the azimuth borehole image (at block 80, the data processing system 28 dequantizes the resulting borehole image. In one embodiment, when dequantizing the borehole image, the data processing system 28 may apply a Gaussian blur (σ) to the borehole image. Generally, the borehole image may include certain quantization or noise artifacts. These artifacts are due to the gradient direction of a quantized image not being uniformly distributed, but, instead, having a discrete irregular distribution. The artifacts may become visible after local image orientations regarding the borehole image are determined (block 82) using a Hough transform or the like. Examples of the artifacts will be discussed below with reference to FIG. 5. As such, by dequantizing the borehole image, the data processing system 28 may filter at least a portion of the artifacts from the Hough transformed image. The applied Gaussian blur may be a predetermined blur or may be optimized depending on the features shown on the borehole image – C6L38-55).
Regarding claim 3, Kherroubi teaches the pre-processing action comprises quality-based resampling is performed on the azimuthal borehole image with data quality control to form a resampled azimuth borehole image (resample the borehole image at the provided scale parameter - C6L15-20).
Regarding claim 4, Kherroubi teaches taking a difference of data values between two adjacent data points along a depth direction or using a gradient filter (window depth – C6L1-20).
Regarding claim 5, Kherroubi teaches the sinusoidal pattern search action comprises a non- uniform Hough transform to search for dips in the smart gradient image (Hough transform - C6L48-52).
Regarding claim 6, Kherroubi teaches the non-uniform Hough transform is performed in a three- dimensional domain to search for sinusoids with different depths, amplitudes, and phases (Based on the sinusoid 58, the data processing system 28 may then determine the dip orientation (dip inclination and azimuth), and, after that, the measured depth of the dip using the sinusoid characteristics (e.g. measured depth, amplitude, phase – C5L24-30).
Regarding claim 7, Kherroubi teaches the Hough transforms implements median based voting, wherein median based voting aggregates the median value of values comprising gradients along a sinusoid and forms a 3D Hough volume (Hough voting - C8L33-64).
Regarding claim 8, Kherroubi teaches recording amplitude and phase of a maximum voting for each depth of the 3D Hough volume (maximum in the hough space - C8L33-64).
Regarding claim 9, Kherroubi teaches the dip post-processing action comprises determining one or more dip features, wherein one or more dip features comprises symmetry, separation, or dip continuity (via a-contrario validation algorithm – C9L32-39).
Regarding claim 10, Kherroubi teaches computing a score for the raw dip based at least in part on the one or more dip features (vote score - C8L41-45).
Regarding claim 11, Kherroubi teaches a system comprising:
an azimuthal borehole measurement tool disposed in a borehole (The well-logging system 10 may be conveyed through a geological formation 14 via a wellbore 16. A downhole tool 12 may be conveyed on a cable 18 via a logging winch system 20 - C4L1-5) configured to obtain an azimuthal borehole image (block 72, the data processing system 28 may receive borehole image data that may have been acquired by the downhole tool 12 described above or by some other logging tool. The borehole image data may be provided in a similar fashion as the flat image - C5L45-64); and an information handling system configured to (data processing system – C4L37-42):
run a pre-processing action on the azimuthal borehole image to obtain a smart gradient image (at block 80, the data processing system 28 dequantizes the resulting borehole image. In one embodiment, when dequantizing the borehole image, the data processing system 28 may apply a Gaussian blur (σ) to the borehole image. Generally, the borehole image may include certain quantization or noise artifacts. These artifacts are due to the gradient direction of a quantized image not being uniformly distributed - C6L38-45) (use an image gradient, which can be computed with a finite difference scheme – C6L56-66) (image gradients field – C7L4-8);
run a sinusoidal pattern search action on the smart gradient image to form a raw dip of the azimuthal borehole image (blocks 84, 86, 88, figure 3, C8L33-64, C9L8-18); and
run a dip post-processing action to form a final dip (block 90, determine if a sinusoid having the predetermined dip orientation is meaningful or actually present at a predetermined measured depth h. From this operation, the data processing system 28 may extract the individual dips from the borehole image – C9L18-31)).
While Kherroubi teaches the above limitations and determining one or more dip features (via a-contrario validation algorithm – C9L32-39), Kherroubi does not specifically disclose one or more dip features comprises symmetry, separation, or dip continuity.
However, He teaches a method and system for dip picking and zonation of highly deviated well images by determining one or more dip features comprising symmetry, separation, or dip continuity (Once the dips have been identified or marked on the borehole image 44, the processor 30 may compute (block 114) a symmetry probability (e.g., vertical symmetry probability) based on the orientation (e.g., inclination and/or azimuth) of the dip- 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kherroubi to further include determining additional dip features as taught by He for the purposes of quality checking the determined dip information to provide more accurate results for enhancing geological interpretations (He - 0005, 0053).
Regarding claim 12, Kherroubi teaches the pre-processing action comprises data quality control performs a quality check on the azimuth borehole image (at block 80, the data processing system 28 dequantizes the resulting borehole image. In one embodiment, when dequantizing the borehole image, the data processing system 28 may apply a Gaussian blur (σ) to the borehole image. Generally, the borehole image may include certain quantization or noise artifacts. These artifacts are due to the gradient direction of a quantized image not being uniformly distributed, but, instead, having a discrete irregular distribution. The artifacts may become visible after local image orientations regarding the borehole image are determined (block 82) using a Hough transform or the like. Examples of the artifacts will be discussed below with reference to FIG. 5. As such, by dequantizing the borehole image, the data processing system 28 may filter at least a portion of the artifacts from the Hough transformed image. The applied Gaussian blur may be a predetermined blur or may be optimized depending on the features shown on the borehole image – C6L38-55).
Regarding claim 13, Kherroubi teaches the pre-processing action comprises quality-based resampling is performed on the azimuthal borehole image with data quality control to form are sampled azimuth borehole image (resample the borehole image at the provided scale parameter - C6L15-20).
Regarding claim 14, Kherroubi teaches the information handling system is further configured to take a difference of data values between two adjacent data points along a depth direction or using a gradient filter (window depth – C6L1-20).
Regarding claim 15, Kherroubi teaches the sinusoidal pattern search action comprises a non-uniform Hough transform to search for dips in the smart gradient image (Hough transform - C6L48-52).
Regarding claim 16, Kherroubi teaches the non-uniform Hough transform is performed in a three- dimensional domain to search for sinusoids with different depths, amplitudes, and phases (Based on the sinusoid 58, the data processing system 28 may then determine the dip orientation (dip inclination and azimuth), and, after that, the measured depth of the dip using the sinusoid characteristics (e.g. measured depth, amplitude, phase – C5L24-30).
Regarding claim 17, Kherroubi teaches the Hough transforms implements median based voting, wherein median based voting aggregates the median value of values along a sinusoid and forms a 3D Hough volume (Hough voting - C8L33-64).
Regarding claim 18, Kherroubi teaches the information handling system is further configured to record amplitude and phase of a maximum voting for each depth of the 3D Hough volume (maximum in the hough space - C8L33-64).
Regarding claim 19, Kherroubi teaches the dip post-processing action comprises determining one or more dip features, wherein one or more dip features comprises symmetry, separation, or dip continuity (via a-contrario validation algorithm – C9L32-39).
Regarding claim 20, Kherroubi teaches the information handling system is further configured to compute a score for the raw dip based at least in part on the one or more dip features (vote score - C8L41-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that the claims “recite a particular machine which integrated the claim into a practical application” (see page 5, section II of the response).
In response, the Examiner disagrees and refers to the Court decision in Thales Visionix Inc. v. US, the Court found “These claims are not merely directed to the abstract idea of using “mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame,” as the Claims Court found. Thales, 122 Fed. Cl. at 252. Rather, the claims are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame” (see page 10, second paragraph of the decision). Furthermore, the Court also found " The claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform” (see page 11, first paragraph of the decision).
In Applicant' s case, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of " … running a pre-processing action on the azimuthal borehole image to obtain a smart gradient image; running a sinusoidal pattern search action on the smart gradient image to form a raw dip of the azimuthal borehole image; and running a dip post-processing action to form a final dip, wherein dip post processing comprises at least symmetry, separation, or dip continuity.…” i.e. calculating/determining dip information without reciting significantly more. There is no recitation describing a particular configuration of the borehole measurement tool or used in a non-conventional manner as indicated in the Thales decision. The claimed measurement tool appears to recite well-understood, routine and conventional elements previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. Nothing of the elements add unconventional elements that confine the claim to a particular useful application other than what is well-understood. Therefore, Applicant' s claims are direct to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more because the recited additional elements above are well-understood, routine and conventional.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0253445 A1) discloses systems, methods, and computer-readable media for visualizing a seismic attribute.
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 RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights