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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment field 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 15-16 remain pending. Due to the cancellation of Claims 8-14, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 that none of the steps in Claim 1 can be performed in the human mind so that they do not constitute a mental step. Applicant argues on Page 8 that claim 1 does not recite mathematics/mathematical equations. Applicant argues on Pages 8-9 that the amendment to claim 1 limits the scope of the claim to a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP recites in 2106.04(A)(2)(III) that “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)” and “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper")”. Dividing an area into sectors and zones can very much be done in the human mind with the use of pen and paper. Anybody of ordinary skill in the art can take a piece of paper and divide an area into sections.
The MPEP recites in 2106.04(a)(2)(I) that “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).”. The MPEP further recites in 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) that “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.”. Claim 1 details a direct limitation that does not use another word to describe a calculation occurring, as the claim directly details “calculating a gamma intensity…”. Furthermore, the claim details steps of setting up vectors and correction matrices, which setup mathematical relationships for the purpose of the mathematical calculations that are then executed in the claim.
The amended limitation to Claim 1 details a) “placing a gamma imaging tool having a gamma sensor into a wellbore” and b) “wherein a circumference of the wellbore is divided into a plurality of gamma imaging sectors”. With respect to (b), this limitation details the circumference of the wellbore is divided into a plurality of sectors. As detailed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art with pen and paper can mentally perform this limitation. With respect to (a), this limitation is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity. Placing imaging tools in a wellbore is well known in the art, as evidenced by Whitacre (US20190353023) in [0003]-[0004] and Orban (US20190017326) in [0027]. Furthermore, the limitation does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim that is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention as the instant application details in [0006] that the technical problem being overcome is providing a high-precision gamma imaging to achieve high-precision geosteering drilling and formation evaluation. That is, placing the imaging tool in the wellbore is nominally and tangentially related to the invention as the gamma imaging tool placement in the wellbore precedes the operation of the imaging tool. As the operation of the gamma imaging tool is for the purpose of measurements, the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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 1-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. A multi-sector data correction method for gamma imaging while drilling, comprising:
S1: placing a gamma imaging tool having a gamma sensor into a wellbore, wherein a circumference of the wellbore is divided into a plurality of gamma imaging sectors;
S2: dividing each gamma imaging sector into a plurality of counting zones;
S3: counting a number of valid counting pulses for each counting zone at a predetermined time interval during measurement while drilling using the gamma sensor;
S4: constructing a plurality of measurement vectors featuring measurement results of all the plurality of gamma imaging sectors based on a value of recording times of each counting zone;
S5: establishing a correction matrix with a conditional number less than a set value, said correction matrix being used to correct measurement data; and
S6: calculating a gamma intensity of each measured sector with the plurality of measurement vectors and the correction matrix as constructed, so as to complete the correction on the measurement data of each measured sector for each predetermined time interval.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because gamma imaging while drilling, counting pulses, and the measurement results is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. acquiring a detection value) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional limitation of “placing a gamma imaging tool having a gamma sensor into a wellbore” is an insignificant extra-solution activity as placing imaging tools in a wellbore is well known in the art, as evidenced by Whitacre (US20190353023) in [0003]-[0004] and Orban (US20190017326) in [0027]. Furthermore, the limitation does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim that is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention as the instant application details in [0006] that the technical problem being overcome is providing a high-precision gamma imaging to achieve high-precision geosteering drilling and formation evaluation. That is, placing the imaging tool in the wellbore is nominally and tangentially related to the invention as the gamma imaging tool placement in the wellbore precedes the operation of the imaging tool. As the operation of the gamma imaging tool is for the purpose of measurements, the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting.
Claims 2-7 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
The processor and memory of Claim 15 and the computer readable storage medium of Claim 16 are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be generic computer elements. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-7 and 15-16 are not rejected under a prior art rejection (35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103).
In regards to independent Claim 1, Gadeken (US6215120) teaches the limitations “wherein a circumference of the wellbore is divided into a plurality of gamma imaging sectors (Figure 2 shows an octant comprised of eight 45 degree sectors or wedges);
S3: counting a number of valid counting pulses for each counting zone at a predetermined time interval during measurement while drilling using the gamma sensor (Figure 3 details the asymmetric set of gamma ray counting rates for each sector plotted on a coordinate system; gamma ray detectors are a tool used in measurement-while-drilling operations – Column 1, Lines 55-67);
S4: constructing a plurality of measurement vectors featuring measurement results of all the plurality of gamma imaging sectors based on a value of recording times of each counting zone (X0 is the X-component of sector count rate, Y0 is the Y-component of sector count rate, where X and Y are the averaged X and Y components of the sector count rate, with A being a vector along the direction associated with the azimuthal angle – Column 4, Lines 5-40);
Whitacre (US20190353023) teaches the limitations “S1: placing a gamma imaging tool having a gamma sensor into a wellbore (“The method includes providing a Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA) positioned in a wellbore. The BHA includes a rotary steerable system and a downhole attitude correction and control system. The downhole correction and control system includes a first sensor set having sensors, the sensors of the first sensor set positioned near ferromagnetic components of a drill string and a second sensor set having sensors, the sensors of the second sensor set positioned further from the ferromagnetic components of the drill string than the sensors of the first sensor set” – [0003]; “BHA 25 may include one or more sensor packages including, for example and without limitation, azimuthal gamma tool 39” – [0014]);
S5: establishing a correction matrix, said correction matrix being used to correct measurement data (Kalman state transmission Matrix calculated to propagate forward the estimates and includes the growth of the error covariance matrix, with correction of the corrupted sensor measurements – [0020])”
Orban (US20190017326) teaches the limitations “S5: establishing a correction matrix (method produces a correction matrix – [0067])
Estes (US20150331138) teaches the limitations “S5: establishing a correction matrix with a conditional number less than a set value, said correction matrix being used to correct measurement data (matrix operator and correction vector determination – [0069]).”
Guo (US20140374582) teaches the limitation “S2: dividing each gamma imaging sector into a plurality of counting zones (“The count rates are then binned into azimuthal sectors at each logging depth. The number of angular sectors can be 16, or 32, or even more to provide high resolution image data. The logging speed or the cable velocity is controlled so as not to compromise the vertical resolution. For example, a 600 ft/hour logging speed with 20 rpm (revolutions per minute) of scanning speed allows acquisition of image data with 6 in vertical resolution” – [0033])”
Gadeken, Whitacre, Orban, Estes, and Guo are silent with regards to the language of “S5: establishing a correction matrix with a conditional number less than a set value, said correction matrix being used to correct measurement data; and
S6: calculating a gamma intensity of each measured sector with the plurality of measurement vectors and the correction matrix as constructed, so as to complete the correction on the measurement data of each measured sector for each predetermined time interval.”
Claims 2-7 and 15-16 are dependent upon Claim 1.
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 YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2863