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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 12/29/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of mental activity steps of identifying a tool reference angle, an eccentricity angle, and eccentricity magnitude from acquired data and a mathematical algorithm for determining a borehole reference angle using a mathematical model (i.e., formula relating parameters to a real-world application)[See the equation in Fig. 6 of the instant Specification] and using it in the correction of acquired borehole imaging sensor data [See Paragraph [0052] of the instant Specification]. A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea [See 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying borehole or subsurface is realized through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the data necessary for implementing the algorithm must be “received” from a sensor; the recitation of the use of a sensor that gathers data while moving along the borehole amounts to the recitation of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of LWD (logging while drilling) or MWD (measuring while drilling)[See Paragraph [0020] of the instant Specification]. The recitation of “performing one or more tasks” is generic and non-specific and amounts to the recitation to “use it” with regards to the application of the algorithm results. The step of “identifying a channel” amounts to a furtherance of the abstract idea itself by reciting an additional mental activity and/or mathematical step. The recitation to initiate a corrective action is non-specific and amounts to the recitation to “use it” with regards to the application of the algorithm results. The recited storage medium, instructions, memory, and processor(s) amounts to the recitation of general-purpose computer components and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Allowable Subject Matter
The instant Claims are rejected under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101. However, were those rejections to be overcome the following would be an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowed because the closest prior art, Hou (US 20190212463 A1), Jarrot et al. (US 20180266239 A1), Weng et al. (US 20220276403 A1), Dollfus et al. (US 20190339411 A1) and Chang et al. (US 20120145384 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a method comprising: identifying a tool reference angle associated with a tool reference point that is offset from a borehole center point, wherein the tool reference angle corresponds to a rotation of a first line from a first reference plane to a borehole reference point; identifying an eccentricity angle associated with the borehole center point, wherein the eccentricity angle corresponds to a rotation of a second line from a second reference plane to the tool reference point, and the eccentricity angle is identified based on the second reference plane being parallel to the first reference plane; and determining a borehole reference angle based on a model that associates the borehole reference angle with values of the tool reference angle, the eccentricity angle, a borehole radius, and the eccentricity magnitude, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 8 is allowed because the closest prior art, Hou (US 20190212463 A1), Jarrot et al. (US 20180266239 A1), Weng et al. (US 20220276403 A1), Dollfus et al. (US 20190339411 A1) and Chang et al. (US 20120145384 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a non-transitory computer-related storage medium having embodied thereon instructions executable by one or more processors that implement a method comprising: identifying a tool reference angle associated with a tool reference point that is offset from a borehole center point, wherein the tool reference angle corresponds to a rotation of a first line from a first reference plane to a borehole reference point; identifying an eccentricity angle associated with the borehole center point, wherein the eccentricity angle corresponds to a rotation of a second line from a second reference plane to the tool reference point, and the eccentricity angle is identified based on the second reference plane being parallel to the first reference plane; and determining a borehole reference angle based on a model that associates the borehole reference angle with values of the tool reference angle, the eccentricity angle, a borehole radius, and an eccentricity magnitude, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 15 is allowed because the closest prior art, Hou (US 20190212463 A1), Jarrot et al. (US 20180266239 A1), Weng et al. (US 20220276403 A1), Dollfus et al. (US 20190339411 A1) and Chang et al. (US 20120145384 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious an apparatus comprising: a memory; and one or more processors that executes instructions out of the memory to: identify a tool reference angle associated with a tool reference point that is offset from a borehole center point, wherein the tool reference angle corresponds to a rotation of a first line from a first reference plane to a borehole reference point; identify an eccentricity angle associated with the borehole center point, wherein the eccentricity angle corresponds to a rotation of a second line from a second reference plane to the tool reference point, and the eccentricity angle is identified based on the second reference plane being parallel to the first reference plane; and determining a borehole reference angle based on a model that associates the borehole reference angle with values of the tool reference angle, the eccentricity angle, a borehole radius, and an eccentricity magnitude, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
The dependent claims are allowed based on their dependence from the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
233
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human would be capable of performing the steps of identifying a tool reference angle, an eccentricity angle, and eccentricity magnitude from acquired data as this would merely entail imagining the tool layout (see instant Fig. 3) and then interpreting corresponding data in that context. The Examiner does agree that the use of the recited model could not be performed by the human mind alone and those limitations are addressed separately.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
572
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
60
784
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees that Claim 1, for example, does not explicitly recite a mathematical equation. However, Claim 1 does recite a mathematical algorithm for determining a borehole reference angle using a mathematical model (i.e., formula relating parameters to a real-world application)[See the equation in Fig. 6 of the instant Specification] and using it in the correction of acquired borehole imaging sensor data [See Paragraph [0052] of the instant Specification]. As such, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
496
784
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
233
784
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
129
780
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
344
780
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The correction of acquired borehole imaging sensor data is part of the recited mathematical algorithm itself. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying borehole or subsurface (such as “filling a void” or “supplying cement”) is realized through performance of the algorithm. The step of “identifying a channel” amounts to a furtherance of the abstract idea itself by reciting an additional mental activity and/or mathematical step. Although not recited, the display of the algorithm result or transmission of the algorithm result would amount to the recitation of mere extra-solution activity.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
655
782
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims do not recite any steps that can be seen to improving the performance of a computer processor. Rather, the instant claims merely use a general-purpose computer in the performance of the algorithm and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200072999 A1 – Correcting Eccentering Effect In Pulse-Echo Imaging
US 20060106541 A1 – Enhancing The Quality And Resolution Of An Image Generated From Single Or Multiple Sources
US 20060031017 A1 – Method And Apparatus For Improved Depth Matching Of Borehole Images Or Core Images
Bloemenkamp et al., FIELD-TESTING A THROUGH-THE-BIT HIGH-DEFINITION ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE IMAGER FOR OIL-BASEDMUD, SPWLA, 2021
Carpenter et al., APPLICATIONS AND INTERPRETATION OF AZIMUTHALLY SENSITIVE DENSITY MEASUREMENTS ACQUIRED WHILE DRILLING, SPWLA, 1997
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights