DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 7/16/2026 for application number 18/236,613.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
Applicant’s specification states that, “Tangible computer-readable storage media, computer-readable storage devices, or computer-readable memory devices, expressly exclude media such as transitory waves, energy, carrier signals, electromagnetic waves, and signals per se,” (para. 0191). However, the independent claim 14 only recites, “A computer-readable medium,” so reading the narrower definitions in from the specification would be improper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed. (The Examiner notes claims 14-20 would also be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection above).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: This invention pertains to training a physics-informed machine learning model for evaluating cement bonds for plugging wellbores. Machine learning models have limitations when there is limited available data, but physics-based models also have drawbacks (spec. para. 0001-03). Therefore, the inventors have created a method for training a machine learning model that incorporates both prior knowledge (like physics models) along with real-world data.
First, with respect to patent subject matter eligibility, the claims now recite the additional limitation of, “obtaining raw data from an acoustic logging tool disposed in a wellbore,” which integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Next, with respect to the prior art is Geng and Staff (see Non-Final Rejection of 4/15/2026). However, they do not teach:
…adjusting an information tuning parameter based on:
a data size of the training dataset; and
a knowledge size of the prior knowledge, wherein the information tuning parameter biases a plurality of feature weights towards the plurality of knowledge based features;
defining a plurality of loss term weights, for an informed loss function, based on:
the data size; and
the knowledge size;
and creating a cement bonding evaluation using:
the plurality of feature weights; and
the informed loss function.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments / amendments with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 14-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Andrew T. Chiusano whose telephone number is (571)272-5231. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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.
/ANDREW T CHIUSANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights