This Office action is in response to application filed on 4/13/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed 4/13/2023, 6/13/2023, 10/16/2024, and 01/20/2026 have been considered.
Claim Objection
3. Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-4 and 14 recite “modeled” and “modelled’ should be consistent.
- Claims 1-2 and 4 recite “the modeled/ modelled measurements” should read “the
plurality of modeled/ modelled measurements”.
Claim 1(a) recites “the logging tool” should read “the electromagnetic logging
tool”.
Claim 1-3, 5 and 13-14 recite “the plurality of measurements” should read “the
plurality of electromagnetic measurements”.
Claim 3(c2) recites “processing the plurality of gain compensated measurement
quantities” should it read “processing a plurality of gain compensated measurement quantities”? Further, “minimizing a sum of the differences between modelled gain
compensated measurements and the plurality of gain compensated measurements” should it be “minimizing a sum of [[the]] differences between modeled gain compensated measurements and the plurality of gain compensated measurements quantities in [[c1]]c2”?
Claim 4 recites “the combined apparent resistivity Rapp(ɸ) should read “the
combined apparent resistivity ” as recited in claim 3? Further, “the toolface” should read “a toolface” and “represent” in line 6 should read “represents”.
Claim 5 recites “toolface” should read “the toolface”. Further, at (c1) “a plurality of
combined apparent resistivity values” should read “the plurality of combined apparent resistivity values”.
Claims 6 and 12 recite “the combined apparent resistivity” should read “the
combined apparent resistivity values”.
Claims 7-11 should be recited “further comprises”.
Claim 13 recites “the electromagnetic logging tool” should it be “an
electromagnetic logging tool” OR “the electromagnetic logging while drilling tool?
Further, in line 4, “wherein at least one of” should read “wherein the at least one of”. Further, “the differences” should read “[[the]] differences”.
Claim 14 line 2 recites “at each of the plurality of frequencies” should it read “at
each of the corresponding plurality of frequencies”? Further, in the last line “the plurality of gain compensated measurements” should it read “the plurality of gain compensated measurements quantity”? It is suggested “wherein the electronic controller is further configured
Claims 16-20 should be recited “further comprises”. Furthermore, “the
transmitting antenna” and “receiving antenna” should read “the at least one transmitting antenna” and “the at least one receiving antenna”.
Claims 11 and 20 recite “wherein the transmitting antennas have a difference tilt
angle than the receiving antennas” should it be “wherein the first and second tilted transmitting antennas have a difference tilt angle than the first and second tilted receiving antennas”?
Examiner note: Due to number of claim objections, the examiner has provided a number of examples of the claim deficiencies in the above objections, however, the list of deficiencies may not be all inclusion. Applicant should refer to theses as examples of deficiencies and should make all the necessary correction to eliminate the claim objections.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) 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 claim 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 limitations (see Italic font) of:
(c) “processing the plurality of measurements made at the corresponding plurality
of frequencies in (b) to compute a combined apparent resistivity of the subterranean formation, wherein the processing includes minimizing a difference between a plurality of modeled measurements and the plurality of measurements made in (b), the modeled measurements computed using a model assuming a homogenous formation” under broadest interpretation, covers performance concepts performed in the mathematical concepts, i.e., using algorithm to compute a combination and minimize a difference).
Thus, 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. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
(a) “rotating an electromagnetic logging tool in a subterranean wellbore
Penetrating the formation, the logging tool including a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna spaced along a tool body, at least one of the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna being a tilted antenna” and (b) “causing the electromagnetic logging tool to make a plurality of electromagnetic measurements at a corresponding plurality of frequencies while rotating in (a)” are data gathering performed insignificantly extra-solution activities, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and using transmitting and receiving antennas in logging tool to transmit and receive data that are recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
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:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering), using conventional tool
(electromagnetic logging tool) components (i.e., transmitting/receiving antennas) specified at a high level of generality, which 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) would not provide significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05(b), section III); and "Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive or transmit data) or simply adding general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2).
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 claim 13 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional
limitations (claims 2-6 and 14-15), that under the broadest 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., mere data gathering) (claim 5), and/or conventional tool components (i.e., transmitting/receiving antennas) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (Claims 2-6 and 14-15), 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1-3, 6, 11-15, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2008/0136419 of Seydoux et al., hereinafter Seydoux in view of US 2016/0230511 of Wang et al., hereinafter Wang.
As per Claim 1, Seydoux teaches a method for making electromagnetic directional resistivity measurements of a subterranean formation (see [0005], Figs 7), the method comprising:
(a) rotating an electromagnetic “EM” logging tool in a subterranean wellbore penetrating the formation ( Fig 1 shows MWD tool 18 is an EM logging tool, [0011], the tool rotates while measurements [0092], [0011] ), the logging tool including a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna spaced along a tool body (see [0047] ), at least one of the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna being a tilted antenna (see [0077], [0087]-[0088] );
(b) causing the electromagnetic logging tool to make a plurality of EM measurements at a corresponding plurality of frequencies while rotating in (a) ( Figs 7 show resistivity measurements considered “EM measurements” ); and
(c) processing the plurality of measurements made at the corresponding plurality of frequencies in (b) to compute a combined apparent resistivity of the subterranean formation ( Figs 7 show resistivity measured using multi-frequency considered “a combined apparent resistivity” ), wherein the processing includes minimizing a difference between a plurality of modeled measurements and the plurality of measurements made in (b) ( using inversion technique, i.e., and repeatedly adjust the model [0006], or optimizing the formation model inversion [0047], or optimal formation inversion [0059], or formation model gives the best fit [0009], [0071], all considered minimizing differences, i.e., between actual tool measurements and the expected measurements for the tool in such a formation model).
Seydoux does not explicitly teach the modeled measurements computed using a model assuming a homogenous formation.
Wang teaches the modeled measurements computed using a model assuming a homogenous formation ( see [0077], [0083] ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Seydoux using a model homogenous formation as taught by Wang that would determine the apparent conductivity measurement by applying apparent resistivity inversion (Wang, [0083]).
As per Claim 2, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux further teaches wherein the processing includes minimizing a sum of the differences between the modelled measurements and the plurality of measurements made at the corresponding plurality of frequencies (as stated in claim 1 above, providing “optimal formation inversion” considered minimizing a sum of differences, see [0059], [0006], [0047], [0071] ).
As per Claim 3, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 2, Seydoux further teaches wherein (c) further comprises: (c1) processing a plurality of measurements at each of the plurality of frequencies ( see [0042], [0061] ) to compute a gain compensated measurement quantity at each frequency ( Figs 7 show “amplitude response” as normalized amplitude as a function of resistivity (or conductivity) considered “a gain-compensated measurement”, see [0026]-[0027], [0055], Fig 11B shows amplitude in dB ); and
(c2) processing the plurality of gain compensated measurement quantities obtained in (c1) to compute the combined apparent resistivity of the subterranean formation (the resistivity/conductivity using multiaxial electromagnetic well logging measurements considered combined apparent resistivity, see [0031]), wherein the processing includes minimizing a sum of the differences between modelled gain compensated measurements and the plurality of gain compensated measurements computed in (c1) (as stated in claim 2 above, providing “optimal formation inversion” considered minimizing a sum of differences, see [0059], [0006], [0047], [0071] ).
As per Claim 6, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux further teaches comprising: (d) evaluating the combined apparent resistivity computed in (c) to control a direction of drilling of the subterranean wellbore (see [0003], [0016], [0069], [0073], [0056] ).
As per Claim 11, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux teaches wherein the electromagnetic logging tool comprises first and second tilted transmitting antennas and first and second tilted receiving (Fig 14(c) shows two tilted transmitting antennas 204, 208 and two tilted receiving antennas 206, 210, see [0080]).
As per Claim 12, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux teaches wherein the combined apparent resistivity of the subterranean formation is computed in (c) using a downhole processor deployed in the electromagnetic logging tool (Figs 7 show combined apparent resistivity using downhole logging tool, see [0047])
Claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 3.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 6.
As per Claim 20, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the tool of claim 13, Seydoux teaches wherein the transmitting antenna comprises first and second tilted transmitting antennas and the receiving antenna comprises first and second tilted receiving antennas, wherein the transmitting antennas have a different tilt angle than the receiving antennas (Fig 14(c), [0080]).
8. Claims 7-10 and 16-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Seydoux in view of Wang and further US 2016/0116628 of Frey.
As per Claim 7, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux teaches first and second tilted receiving antennas (Fig 14(c) shows two tilted receiving antennas 206, 210, see [0080]). Seydoux and Wang do not explicitly teach first and second axial transmitting antennas. Frey teaches first and second axial transmitting antennas (Fig 2B shows T1z and T2z are axial transmitting antennas, see [0027]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Seydoux and Wang having a first and second axial transmitting antennas as taught by Frey that would combine those transmitters and receivers to obtain more information from the EM measurements.
As per Claim 8, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux teaches wherein the electromagnetic logging tool comprises first and second tilted transmitting antennas (Fig 14(c) shows two tilted transmitting antennas 204 and 208, see [0080]). Seydoux and Wang do not explicitly teach first and second axial receiving antennas. Frey teaches first and second axial receiving antennas (Fig 2B shows R1z and R2z are axial receiving antennas, see [0027]-[0028]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Seydoux and Wang having a first and second axial receiving antennas as taught by Frey that would combine those transmitters and receivers to obtain more information from the EM measurements.
As per Claim 9, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux teaches wherein the electromagnetic logging tool comprises first and second tilted receiving antennas (Fig 14(c) shows two tilted receiving antennas 206, 210, see [0080]). Seydoux and Wang do not explicitly teach first and second transverse transmitting antennas. Frey teaches first and second transverse transmitting antennas (Fig 2B shows transverse transmitting antennas T1x, T1y, see [0027]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Seydoux and Wang having a first and second transverse transmitting antennas as taught by Frey that would combine those transmitters and receivers to obtain more information from the EM measurements.
As per Claim 10, Seydoux in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, Seydoux teaches wherein the electromagnetic logging tool comprises first and second tilted transmitting antennas (Fig 14(c) shows two tilted transmitting antennas 204, 208, see [0080]). Seydoux and Wang do not teach first and second transverse receiving antennas. Frey teaches first and second transverse receiving antennas (Fig 2B shows transverse receiving antennas R1x, R1y, see [0027]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Seydoux and Wang having a first and second transverse transmitting antennas as taught by Frey that would combine those transmitters and receivers to obtain more information from the EM measurements.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 10.
Examiner’s Notes
9. Claims 4-5 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art and as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for considering novel and non-obvious subject matter:
Claim 4 recites the combined apparent resistivity formula that is not found in the prior art. Claim 5 recites “computing a plurality of combined apparent resistivity values at a corresponding plurality of discrete toolface angles; and processing the plurality of combined apparent resistivity values to generate an image depicting the plurality of combined apparent resistivity values versus toolface angle and measured depth of the wellbore” that is not found in prior art.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160282503 of Hou et al (Multifrequency processing to determine formation properties).
US 2017/0306701 of Wu et al. (Improving geosteering inversion using look-ahead-around electromagnetic tool).
US 2005/0024060 of Bittar (Electromagnetic wave resistivity tool having a tilted antenna for geosteering within a desired payzone).
US 2005/0218898 of Fredette et al (A combined propagation and lateral resistivity downhole tool).
US 20170052273 of Yang (Determining a Full Electromagnetic Coupling Tensor Using Multiple Antennas).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights