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 .
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzubaidi, et al. (Automated Rock Quality Designation Using Convolutional Neural Networks) in view of Maeso, et al. (US 2021/0192712).
With regard to claim 1, Alzubaidi, et al. (hereinafter “Alzubaidi”) discloses a method for analyzing rock cores of a subterranean formation, i.e., underground and/or borehole (See for example, paragraph 3, page 3720, section 2.3, pages 3722-3723) , the method comprising:
capturing a first plurality of core images of the rock cores that are collected from a
plurality of geographical locations in the subterranean formation (See for example, page 3724, last paragraph); generating, by a computer processor and from the first plurality of core images, a
first plurality of sub-images, i.e., small square images, by sub-dividing each of the first plurality of core images (See for example, page 3724, last paragraph – section 3.2, page 3725);
classifying, using a secondary machine learning model, i.e., CNNs, that automatically identifies
artifacts induced from preparation of the rock cores, the first plurality of sub-images into a plurality of artifact-free sub-images, i.e., intact, and a plurality of artifact-containing sub-images, i.e., non-intact; and analyzing, using a primary machine learning model, the plurality of artifact-free sub-images to generate a core analysis result (See for example, Section 2.3, page 3722 -3723; and Fig. 9). Alzubaidi does not expressly call for sending the artifact free, i.e., intact, sub-images to a separate convolutional neural network, i.e., primary machine learning model, for analysis and generate core analysis result. However, Maeso, et al. (See for example, paragraph 0077) teach this feature. paragraph 0050). Alzubaidi and Maeso, et al. are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e., providing an image of a geological formation at the surface including downhole processing. Such methods may be used to provide key information relative to the rock structural features of the formation at the surface in real-time or near real-time (See for example, paragraph 0010). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Maeso, et al. into the system of Alzubaidi , and to do so would at least allow during the initial stage (since the claim does not exclude the use of the artifact during the analysis and does not state the analysis is carried out directly/only (emphasis added) using the artifact-free sub-images) make analysis and/or quality assessment of the images using an additional neural network by providing the neural trained with a positive, i.e., image including pixels detected as rock structural feature by the first machine learning model, indeed representing a rock structural feature network with positive quality (See for example, paragraph 0077). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alzubaidi with Maeso, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: capturing a second plurality of core images of the rock cores; generating, from the second plurality of core images, a second plurality of sub- images by sub-dividing each of the second plurality of core images; forming, based on user assigned labels to designate each of the second plurality of sub-images as artifact-free or artifact-containing, a secondary machine learning dataset, wherein any sub-image designated as artifact-containing is excluded from the secondary machine learning dataset; and training, based on the secondary machine learning dataset during a secondary training phase prior to classifying the first plurality of sub-images, the secondary machine learning model (See for example, section 3.1, pages 372-3725; Fig. 4; and section 5.1 “The results demonstrate that the model correctly learned representative features from the training images and was able to analyze
new core images by differentiating between intact and nonintact cores.”
With regard to claim 3, the method according to claim 1, wherein the artifacts comprise one or more of a hand written text, a core plug location, a core breakage, and a missing portion of the rock cores (See for example, section 5.2.4, page 3731 of Alzubaidi; and paragraphs 0044-0058 of Maeso, et al.).
With regard to claim 5, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing, based on the core analysis result, a field operation of the subterranean formation (See for example, section 6 of Alzubaidi; and paragraphs 0081-0083 of Maeso, et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 8 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 8. Additionally, applicant’s attention is further invited to section 4.1.3 and the Abstract of Alzubaidi).
Claims 9, 10, and 12 are rejected the same as claims 2, 3, and 5 respectively except claims 9, 10, and 12 are apparatus claims. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 2, 3, and 5 are respectively applicable to claims 9, 10, and 12.
Claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 8. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 8 is applicable to claim 15. Claim 15 distinguishes from claim 8 only in the it recites a wellbore penetrating a subterranean formation; and a well control system of the wellbore. Fortunately, Maeso, et al. (See for example, paragraphs 0028-0034; and Fig. 1) teach these features.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected the same as claims 9, 10, and 12 respectively. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 9, 10, and 12 are respectively applicable to claims 16, 17, and 19.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzubaidi in view of Maeso, et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Holl, et al. (AU-2009311619 B2: WO 2010/053618 A1).
With regard to claim 6, Alzubaidi (as modified by Maeso, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. selecting, from the plurality of geographical locations and based on the core analysis result, a target location, wherein the core analysis result comprises geological characteristics of the plurality of geographical locations, and wherein the field operation is performed at the target location. However, Holl, et al. (See for example, Fig. 2 and the associated text) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Holl, et al. into the system of Alzubaidi (as modified by Maeso, et al.) so that a drilling operation may be carried out by selecting target locations or regions as a result of geological characteristics, such as porosity, permeability, etc. (See for example, paragraphs 0051-0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alzubaidi (as modified by Maeso, et al.) with Holl, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
With regard to claim 7, the method according to claim 6, wherein the geological characteristics comprise one or more of porosity, permeability, fluid saturation, and grain density of the rock cores (See for example, paragraphs 0051-0052 of Holl, et al.).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected the same as claims 6 and 7 respectively. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 6 and 7 are respectively applicable to claims 13 and 14.
Claim 20 is rejected the same as claim 13. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 13 is applicable to claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights