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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 13 February 2026 have been considered. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are pending. Claims 8-14 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4, 15, and 18 have been amended.
The examiner notes a mistake in the previous office action; Selviah et al. has publication number WO 2022/258947 A1, not WO 2022/25947 A1.
Applicant’s efforts to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are satisfactory, therefore all 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 are satisfactory, therefore all 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered, however the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection. See 103 rejections below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 9,903,189 B2), hereinafter Ma, in view of Selviah et al. (WO 2022/285947 A1), hereinafter Selviah, and Al-Qahtani et al. (US 2021/0302619 A1), hereinafter Al-Qahtani.
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses: A method comprising:
obtaining a seismic survey of an area; (Ma, e.g., see fig. 1A illustrating a schematic diagram of an example well system; see also fig. 9 illustrating a flow chart showing an example technique for processing microseismic data, specifically to step (920) disclosing collect microseismic data; see also col. 5, line 64 - col. 6, line 32 disclosing the stimulation treatment, as well as other activities and natural phenomena, can generate microseismic events in the subterranean region (104). In the example shown in fig. 1A, the injection system (108) has caused multiple microseismic events (132) during a multi-stage injection treatment. A subset (134) of microseismic events are shown inside a circle. The subject (134) of microseismic events can be identified based on the time that they occurred, and the subset (134) can be filtered or otherwise modified to exclude outliers or other event points. the microseismic event data can be collected from the subterranean region (104). For example, the microseismic data can be collected by one or more sensors (136) associated with the injection system (108), or the microseismic data can be collected by other types of systems. The microseismic information detected in the well system (100) can include acoustic signals generated by natural phenomena, acoustic signals associated with a stimulation treatment applied through the wellbore (102), or other types of signals. for instance, the sensors may detect acoustic signals generated by rock slips, rock movements, rock fractures or other events in the subterranean region (104)).
constructing, using a computer processor, a convex hull of the seismic survey area; (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 1B illustrating computing subsystem (110) comprising processor (160) and memory (150); see also col. 6, line 46 -- col. 8, line 31 disclosing the specifics of the functionality of the computer subsystem (110), specifically the computing subsystem (110) can analyze microseismic data collected in the well system (100). For example, the computing subsystem (110) can analyze microseismic event data from a stimulation treatment of a subterranean region (104) The computing subsystem (110) can receive and analyze the microseismic event data. for instance, the computing subsystem (110) may identify an SRV or other data for the injection treatment based on the microseismic data. The computed SRV data can be presented to well operators, field engineers, or others to visualize and analyze the temporal and spatial evolution of the SRV; see also col. 2, lines 41-63 disclosing the geometrical representation can include, for example, a three-dimensional (3D) convex hull or a two-dimensional (2D) convex polygon enclosed some or all of the microseismic events. The geometrical representation can include plots, tables, charts, graphs, coordinates, vector data, maps or other geometrical objects; see also figs. 2A-B illustrating a plot showing an example of a boundary calculated from microseismic data and another plot showing the example boundary (208), respectively; see also col. 9, line 65 - col. 10, lines 26 disclosing computing the boundary can include calculating an initial boundary based on multiple microseismic events (e.g., events at extreme locations) as shown in Figs. 2A, 2B. The calculated boundary can be iteratively expanded based on the selected subset of microseismic events that reside outside the boundary, for example, as shown in figs. 3A, 3B, and 4A, 4B. Fig. 2A is a plot (200) showing an exemplary of a boundary (208) calculated from locations of microseismic events (206). Fig. 2B is another plot (200b) showing the example boundary (208) from fig. 2A. In the illustrated plots (200a-b), the example boundary (208) is an example of a 3D convex hull).
determining, using the computer processor, a minimum boundary containing a minimum convex hull area; (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied above, with specific regard to fig. 1B illustrating the computer processor; sec also fig. 5A illustrating boundary (508); see also col. 10, line 54 - col. 11, line 51 disclosing before computing an SRV boundary, outliers among the microseismic data can be identified and removed. The outliers can include, for example, statistical outliers, deterministic outliers, or another type of outlier. The deterministic outliers can be identified and cleared, for example, by removing microseismic events with a certain attribute exceeding a threshold. Statistical outliers include microseismic events whose distance from an average location of the microseismic events is larger than a threshold. The average location can be, for example, the mean value of the locations
(
x
ₜ
,
y
ₜ
,
z
ₜ
)
,
1
≤
i
≤
k
, of the microseismic events in the data set. The threshold can be, for example, the sum of the computed mean value and three (or two, four, etc.) times the standard deviation. Fig. 5A shows five example outliers (555) lying outside an example boundary (508); examiner notes that boundary (508) is construed as a minimum boundary containing a minimum convex hull area, wherein the boundary is explicitly described as being minimized).
generating, using the computer processor, two linear maps based on the minimum boundary using a rotation angle and an semi-axis; and (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to fig. 1B illustrating computer subsystem (110); see also fig. 15A illustrating a plot showing an example of a boundary and its vertices; see also fig. 15B illustrating a plot showing an ellipsoid associated with the example boundary (1508) in fig. 15A; see also col. 22, line 39 - col. 27, line 7 disclosing fig. 15A is a plot (1500a) showing an example of a boundary (1508) and its vertices (1516); fig. 15B is a plot (1500b) showing an ellipsoid (1509) associated with the example boundary (1508) of fig. 15A. In the illustrated example, the boundary is a complex hull constructed based on the microseismic events (1506) shown in fig. 15B. The boundary (1508) can be computed according to the example operations described with respect to figs. 2A-5B. In Cartesian coordinates, a general ellipsoid may be described as in equation (11)
a
1
x
2
+
a
2
y
2
+
a
3
z
2
+
2
a
4
x
y
+
2
a
5
x
z
+
2
a
6
y
z
+
2
a
7
x
+
2
a
8
y
+
2
a
9
z
+
a
10
=
0
with coefficients
a
1
~
a
10
. The ten coefficients can be subject to the constraints:
a
4
<
a
1
a
2
,
<
a
1
a
3
,
<
a
2
a
3
. In some implementations, to reduce the complexity, additional constraints can be applied on one or more of these parameters. For example, it can be assumed that the origin of the ellipsoid is not on the ellipsoid surface, for instance,
a
10
≠
0
and equation (11) may be normalized and described as in equation (12) with nine parameters
a
1
~
a
9
:
a
1
x
2
+
a
2
y
2
+
a
3
z
2
+
2
a
4
x
y
+
2
a
5
x
z
+
2
a
6
y
z
+
2
a
7
x
+
2
a
8
y
+
2
a
9
z
=
1
(eqn. 12). In some implementations, the ellipsoid represented by the equation (12) can also be represented in a standard form: by defining
x
'
=
a
cos
u
sin
v
,
y
'
=
b
sin
u
cos
v
,
z
'
=
c
cos
v
, and using the following linear transformations
x
y
z
=
R
z
R
y
R
x
x
'
y
'
z
'
+
x
0
y
0
z
0
,
R
x
=
1
0
0
0
cos
θ
x
-
sin
θ
x
0
sin
θ
x
cos
θ
x
,
R
y
=
cos
θ
y
0
sin
θ
y
0
1
0
-
sin
θ
y
0
cos
θ
y
,
R
z
=
cos
θ
z
-
sin
θ
z
0
sin
θ
z
cos
θ
z
0
0
0
1
. Here, a, b, c lengths of semi-axes
θ
x
,
θ
y
,
θ
z
are rotation angles around the x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis;
R
x
,
R
y
,
R
z
are rotation operations, and
x
0
,
y
0
,
z
0
is the center of the ellipsoid. The center of the ellipsoid
x
0
,
y
0
,
z
0
can be calculated by equation (21):
x
0
y
0
z
0
=
a
1
a
4
a
5
a
4
a
2
a
6
a
5
a
6
a
3
-
1
a
7
a
8
a
9
. The translation operation of the ellipsoid by the quantities
x
^
=
x
-
x
0
,
y
^
=
y
-
y
0
,
z
^
=
z
-
z
0
can begiven by translation matrix T,
T
=
I
4
, which can transform the matrix A into another matrix A’ by
A
'
=
T
A
T
T
=
a
1
a
4
a
5
0
a
4
a
2
a
6
0
a
5
a
6
a
3
0
0
0
0
a
7
x
0
+
a
8
y
0
+
a
9
z
0
-
1
. Then the ellipsoid equation (12) with the center (0,0,0) can become
b
1
x
2
+
b
2
y
2
+
b
3
z
2
+
2
b
4
x
y
+
2
b
5
x
z
+
2
b
6
y
z
=
1
and it can also be structured using a symmetric
3
×
3
matrix
B
,
Y
T
B
Y
=
1
,
B
=
b
1
b
4
b
5
b
4
b
2
b
6
b
5
b
6
b
3
,
Y
=
x
y
z
. In some instances, the positive value of the rotation angle can represent the counterclockwise direction; the negative value can represent the clockwise direction. Based on the equation (12), the center, lengths of semi-axes, and rotation angles of the ellipsoid can be obtained, for example, using equation (21), equation (27), and equation (30), respectively).
generating, using the computer processor and two linear maps, a grid populated by geological models of a subsurface. (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regards to figs. 1B, 15A, and 15B; see also figs. 16a-16b illustrating a plot showing an example of a visualization (1600a) of microseismic events, hydraulic fractures, and SRV boundaries, as well as a plot showing another view of the example visualization (1600a) in fig. 16a, respectively; see also col. 27, lines 19-67 disclosing fig. 16A is a plot showing a view of an example visualization (1600a) of microseismic events, hydraulic fractures, and the SRV boundary. In addition to the microseismic events (1506) and the approximated ellipsoid (1509) shown in fig. 15B, the example visualization (1600a) includes nine hydraulic fractures (1616) identified based on the microseismic events (1506). Fig. 16B is a plot showing another view (1600b) of the example visualization (1600a) in fig. 16A. The view (1600b) in fig. 16B provides another perspective of the extension, spacing, and orientation of the identified fractures (1616) as well as the shape and orientation of the ellipsoid (1509); examiner notes that figs. 16A-16B explicitly illustrate a grid populated by geological models of a subsurface).
Ma is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: a bounding box and axis origin.
However, Selviah further discloses a bounding box. (Selviah, e.g., see figs. 1-3, 8, and 13, and see also pg. 30, lines 21-31 disclosing fig. 13 is a flowchart illustrating a which may be performed by any of the apparatuses described with respect to figures 1-3, and which may be performed in conjunction with the method of fig. 8. Once the third axis value has been determined it may be then determined, at (1302), whether the determined coordinate of the centre of rotation in the coordinate system lies within a minimum bounding box of the first point cloud or of the first translated point cloud. If not, at (1304), the method comprises projecting the determined centre of rotation into the minimum bounding box).
axis origin (Selviah, e.g., see pg. 2, line 26 - pg. 3, line8 disclosing one dataset may be rotated in the plane about a centre, which may be the centre determined according to the first example, or which may be a different centre, for example an origin of the dataset to be rotated; see also pg. 31, lines 11-25).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ma with Selviah's bounding box and axis origin for at least the reasons that the use of a bounding box allows for the projected centre of rotation to be selected as the new coordinates of the centre of rotation, as taught by Selviah; e.g., see pg. 30, lines 28-29. Also, it would be obvious because the dataset, rotated, and translated in the plane may be aligned in an axis perpendicular to a separate plane; e.g., see pg. 3, lines 6-8.
Ma in view of Selviah is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing:
wherein the geological models include data pertaining to porosity, to permeability, and to a fluid;
generating, using the computer processor, a planned drilling path based on the grid populated by the geological models of the subsurface; and
drilling, using a drilling system, a well guided by the planned drilling path.
However, Al-Qahtani further discloses a geological model (¶19: “the computer system generates a three-dimensional (3D) reservoir model and mechanical model of the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the data representing the hydrocarbon reservoir”) including data pertaining to porosity, to permeability, and to a fluid (¶19: “In some implementations, the 3D geomechanical model includes a distribution of a geomechanical quality index calculated using porosity, permeability, gas saturation” and is “used to improve the placement of a hydrocarbon well”. The model can also be used to “predict issues or risks that can arise while drilling or stimulation”); and generating, using a computer processor, a planned drilling path based on the geological model of a subsurface (Abstract: “The 3D geomechanical model is for identifying a sweet spot in the hydrocarbon reservoir for drilling and stimulation, and placing a hydrocarbon well in the sweet spot.”; a computer processor is involved in generating the 3D model). While Al-Qahtani does not explicitly recite drilling, using a drilling system, a well guided by the planned drilling path, it is clear that Al-Qahtani’s 3D model is for that purpose (the invention is for guiding a well to a “sweet spot” in the reservoir via drilling; see at least the Abstract).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ma in view of Selviah by adding Al-Qahtani’s geological model to the geological models populating the grid, Al-Qahtani’s geological model including data pertaining to porosity, to permeability, and to a fluid; and to generate, using the computer processor, a planned drilling path based on the grid populated by the geological models of the subsurface; and to drill, using a drilling system, a well guided by the planned drilling path. Doing so would provide additional information relevant to production risks and potential and enable one to exploit a “sweet spot,” if found, for increased production.
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the seismic survey of the area is obtained using a predetermined acquisition geometry, the predetermined acquisition geometry being defined by a plurality of spatial locations where a source is activated and a set of spatial coordinates where receivers are placed. (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also fig. 1A illustrating wellbore as creating a well in subterranean region (104) and having a region of separate treatment stages (118a-188b) which is cited above in claim 1 as providing the acoustic signals required to produce microseismic events that produce microseismic events (132), to include a subset (134) of microseismic events, which are shown in the circle. Fig. 1 also illustrates sensors (136) placed at surface level (106); examiner notes that the predetermined acquisition geometry is explicitly illustrated in fig. 1A as subset (134) of well system (100), and the predetermined acquisition geometry is defined as within a radius of the wellbore (102) of area (134) (source) and the sensors (136) (where receivers are placed)).
Regarding claim 3, Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein constructing the convex hull of the seismic survey area comprises:
determining, using the computer processor, a plurality of spatial locations including a plurality of sources and a plurality of receivers; and (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically with regard to fig. 1A illustrating a plurality of treatment stages (118a) and (118b); construed by the examiner as sources; as well as a plurality of receivers (136) placed on surface (106); see also fig. 1B as cited to claim 1 disclosing computing subsystem (110); see also col. 5, line 64 - col. 6, line 14 disclosing the stimulation treatment, as well as other activities and natural phenomena, can generate microseismic events in the subterranean region (104). In the example shown in fig. 1A, the injection system (108) has caused multiple microseismic events (132) during a multi-stage injection treatment. A subset (134) of microseismic events are shown inside a circle. In some implementations, the subset (134) of microseismic events are events associated with a single treatment stage (e.g., treatment stage (118a)) of a multi-stage injection treatment; see also col. 4, lines 62-67 disclosing the example injection system (108) of fig. 1A uses multiple treatment stages or intervals (118a) and (118b) (collectively "stages 118"). The injection system (108) may delineate fewer stages or multiple additional stages beyond the two example stages (118) shown in fig. 1A. The stages (118) may each have one or more perforation clusters (120)).
constructing, using the computer processor, the convex hull by iteratively processing the plurality of spatial locations. (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied above and to claim 1; see also col. 9, line 65 - col. 10, line 20 disclosing computing the boundary can include calculating an initial boundary based on multiple microseismic events (e.g., events at extreme locations) as shown in figs. 2A, 2B. The calculated boundary can be iteratively expanded based on the selected subset of microseismic events that reside outside the boundary, for example, as shown in figs. 3A, 3B, and 4A, 4B. As an example, a facet expansion operation may be performed that includes identifying facet expansion groups from the selected subset of microseismic events residing outside the boundary, and expanding facets of the calculated boundary to enclose microseismic events in the expansion group. In some implementations, the boundary expansion operation can be performed iteratively and result in a boundary that encloses (e.g., contains or intersects) all the events in the selected subset while some other events (e.g., the filtered outliers, low density events, etc.) may reside outside the boundary).
Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein a translation between world coordinates and grid coordinates is based on the two linear maps. (Ma, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also col. 19, lines 1-22 disclosing for a given treatment stage, after filtering the events (e.g., excluding outliers and events with low density), the remaining events can be projected onto the reference plane, for example by following linear transformation; e.g., see eqn. (10), where
(
X
₀
,
Y
₀
,
Z
₀
)
is a point on the reference plane. Note that the selection of the point
(
X
₀
,
Y
₀
,
Z
₀
)
does not affect results. The above equations (8)-(10) can transform an event's 3D location (x,y,z) to the plane coordinates (s,t,u), where actually the u-component is zero; examiner notes that 3D location is construed as the world coordinates and the plane coordinates are construed as the grid coordinates).
Regarding claim 6, Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein determining a bounding box containing the minimum convex hull area comprises: determining, using the computer processor, the rotation angle and the axis origin; see rejection as applied to claim 1.
Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: determining, using the computer processor, a plurality of rotated coordinates based on the rotation angle and the axis origin; and calculating, using the computer processor, the area of the bounding box based on the plurality of the rotated coordinates.
However, Selviah further discloses: determining, using the computer processor, a plurality of rotated coordinates based on the rotation angle and the axis origin; and (Selviah, e.g., see pg. 12, line 30 - pg. 13, line 7 disclosing the coordinate of the centre of rotation in an axis perpendicular to the plane (thereby defining a normal to the plane) may be determined. To do so, for all the points in the point cloud that correspond to the projected points contained in the grid cell nearest to the determined mean, the range of coordinates in the perpendicular axis may be determined and it may be further determined whether the range is less than a predetermined threshold and the coordinate of the centre of rotation in the perpendicular axis may be determined as the mean value of all the coordinates of the points on the perpendicular axis. Optionally, the determined mean may be summed with a parameter that is proportional to the height of the imaging apparatus that took the readings of the space. If the range is not less than the predetermined threshold then it may be determined which points have the respective highest and lowest coordinate in the perpendicular axis. The midpoint between these two values may be determined and then the midpoint may be selected as the coordinate of the centre of rotation in the perpendicular axis; see also pg. 18, lines 16-32 disclosing The at least one processor (16) is configured to, for each point in the point cloud: record the projection of each point in the first point cloud onto a first 2D plane in the coordinate system, the first 2D plane being defined by first and second perpendicular axes in the coordinate system, each of the first and second axes being perpendicular to each other, to form a first 2D dataset, each point of the first 2D dataset being a projection of a corresponding point in the first point cloud onto the first 2D plane; define, for the first 2D dataset, a 2D grid of cells contain in the first plane, each cell being of a predetermined size and each cell comprising a number of points in the first 2D dataset, determine a mean position of the first 2D dataset or mean grid cell; select, as the components of the centre of rotation in the first and second axis, the coordinates in the first and second axes of the point that is either the mean of the 2D dataset or that is at the centre of the mean grid cell; and to store or output the determined components of the centre of rotation in the first and second axes).
calculating, using the computer processor, the area of the bounding box based on the plurality of the rotated coordinates. (Selviah, e.g., see rejection as applied above and to claim 1; see also pg. 15, lines 13-17 disclosing once the centre of rotation has been determined (e.g., its components in first, second, and third axes determined), it may then be determined whether the centre of rotation lies within a minimum bounding box of the point cloud of which is the centre. If not, the centre may be projected into the minimum bounding box and this projected centre used as the centre of rotation (e.g., any coordinates thereof)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani with Selviah's determining, using the computer processor, a plurality of rotated coordinates based on the rotation angle and the axis origin; and calculating, using the computer processor, the area of the bounding box based on the plurality of the rotated coordinates for at least the reasons that basing coordinates off a rotation and axis is useful in the case of a scan having no roof or upper surface or of a scan of a very flat environment where the elevation changes in the environment are less than the scanner height offset, as taught by Selviah; e.g., see pg. 30, lines 22-31.
Regarding claim 7, Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 6, wherein the minimum bounding box is the bounding box with a smallest area.
However, Selviah further discloses: wherein the minimum bounding box is the bounding box with a smallest area. (Selviah, e.g., see pg. 30, line 22 - pg. 31, line 10 disclosing the method comprises projecting the determined centre of rotation into the minimum bounding box. The parameters mentioned above (0.25 m for the grid cell size and 1.5 m for the offset parameter) are exemplary only and may be implementation specific. Some examples may use these values as "base" parameters and then scale them by respective scaling factors to account for smaller or larger scale scans. However, the values should be small enough that it is possible to distinguish between internal and external grid cells).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani with Selviah's minimum bounding box is the bounding box with a smallest area for at least the reasons that ensuring a small area would distinguish between internal and external grid cells, as taught by Selviah; e.g., see pg. 31, lines 8-10.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 20, claims 15-18 and 20 recite a system comprising a processor and a drilling system which implements the method of claims 1-4 and 6, and are therefore rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claims 1-4 and 6.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0149142 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 4, wherein the world coordinates are processed sequentially, one by one.
However, Li further discloses: wherein the world coordinates are processed sequentially, one by one. (Li, e.g., see para. [0052] disclosing as an example, given a set of points, a Graham scan algorithm may compute a convex hull, for example, by finding an extreme point, which serves as a pivot point on the convex hull, which may be selected to be the point with the largest coordinate value (e.g., in a coordinate dimension), sorting the points in order of increasing angle about the pivot point to arrive at a star-shaped polygon (e.g., or a portion thereof) where the pivot point can "see" the segments and points of the star-shaped polygon (e.g., a convexity condition), and building the convex hull by marching around the star-shaped polygon (e.g., or portion thereof) and adding edges when making a left turn and back- tracking when making a right turn (e.g., or vice versa depending on the coordinate system definition); examiner notes that each point, addressed in order of increasing angle is construed as processed sequentially, one by one).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ma in view of Selviah and Al-Qahtani with Li’s world coordinates are processed sequentially, one by one, for at least the reasons that sequential processing requires less computing power than processing all at once.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites a system comprising a processor and a drilling system which implements the method of claim 5, and is therefore rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 5.
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 ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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 Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights