DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed on 07/17/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 04/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONZIER ET AL. (US 20180003032 A1) (hereinafter “DONZIER”) in view of SUGIURA (US 20130341091 A1).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 11, DONZIER teaches a depth positioning method to position a production logging tool and a measurement log in a hydrocarbon well in production obtained by means of the tool and the BRI of:
A downhole measurement tool for detecting downhole measured depth (See, e.g., ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1),
comprising:
at least
a first sensor and a second sensor (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage medium (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4)
having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the downhole imaging tool to:
obtain azimuthal borehole measurements from at least the first sensor and the second sensor (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
perform correlation computation on the azimuthal borehole measurements (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
determine a time delay based on the correlation computation on the azimuthal borehole measurements (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
and
determine a velocity of the downhole measurement tool based on the time delay (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9).
However, DONZIER is lacking the explicit language of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
SUGIURA teaches ‘A method for managing a drilling operation, including generating, by a first sensor and a second sensor of a bottom hole assembly (BHA), a first time based data log and a second time based data log, respectively, representing a borehole parameter along a drilling trajectory, determining, by a computer processor of the BHA and during the drilling operation, a time shift by comparing the first time based data log and the second time based data log, where offsetting the first and second time based data logs by the time shift maximizes a correlation factor of the first and second time based data logs, and determining, within a pre-determined time period from generating the first and second time based data logs, a drilling speed based on the time shift and a pre-determined distance between the first sensor and the second sensor’ and the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation (See, e.g., ¶ 0033, 0062).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DONZIER to include multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DONZIER because it would be beneficial to improve drilling speed and depth computation for downhole tools. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 17, DONZIER teaches a depth positioning method to position a production logging tool and a measurement log in a hydrocarbon well in production obtained by means of the tool and the BRI of:
obtaining, at the downhole measurement tool, azimuthal borehole measurements from at least a first sensor and a second sensor of the downhole measurement tool (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
performing correlation computation on the azimuthal borehole measurements (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
determining a time delay based on the correlation computation on the azimuthal borehole measurements (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
determining a velocity of the downhole measurement tool based on the time delay (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
and
determining a downhole measured depth of the downhole measurement tool within a borehole based on the velocity (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9).
However, DONZIER is lacking the explicit language of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
SUGIURA teaches ‘A method for managing a drilling operation, including generating, by a first sensor and a second sensor of a bottom hole assembly (BHA), a first time based data log and a second time based data log, respectively, representing a borehole parameter along a drilling trajectory, determining, by a computer processor of the BHA and during the drilling operation, a time shift by comparing the first time based data log and the second time based data log, where offsetting the first and second time based data logs by the time shift maximizes a correlation factor of the first and second time based data logs, and determining, within a pre-determined time period from generating the first and second time based data logs, a drilling speed based on the time shift and a pre-determined distance between the first sensor and the second sensor’ and the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation (See, e.g., ¶ 0033, 0062).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DONZIER to include multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DONZIER because it would be beneficial to improve drilling speed and depth computation for downhole tools. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, 12, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DONZIER further teaches the BRI of:
determining the downhole measured depth of the downhole imaging tool within the borehole based on the velocity (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, 13, 18, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUGIURA teaches the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
DONZIER further teaches the BRI of:
the azimuthal borehole images include
a first azimuthal borehole image obtained from the first sensor and a second azimuthal borehole image obtained from the second sensor (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9),
and
determining the time delay based on the correlation computation on the azimuthal borehole images comprising:
extracting a borehole feature in the first azimuthal borehole image using a time window (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
performing the correlation computation on the second azimuthal borehole image using the extracted borehole feature in the time window as a template for detecting at least a portion of the borehole feature in the second azimuthal borehole image (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9);
and
determining the time delay based on a time offset between a first time instant the borehole feature was detected in the first azimuthal borehole image and a second time instant at least the portion of the borehole feature was detected in the second azimuthal borehole image (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUGIURA teaches the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
DONZIER further teaches the BRI of:
determining the time delay based on the correlation computation on the azimuthal borehole images includes
determining the time delay by performing a batch loop for the correlation computation of a plurality of borehole features in the azimuthal borehole images (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUGIURA teaches the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
DONZIER further teaches the BRI of:
obtaining the azimuthal borehole images and performing the correlation computation on the azimuthal borehole images are performed while the drilling system is performing drilling operations (See, e.g., ¶ 0002).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, 14, 19, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUGIURA teaches the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
DONZIER further teaches the BRI of:
determining a second downhole measured depth based on accelerometer measurements (See, e.g., ¶ 0054, 0083, 0086, 0091; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4);
and
determining a final downhole measured depth based on the downhole measured depth determined from the correlation computation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements (See, e.g., ¶ 0054, 0083, 0086, 0091; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUGIURA teaches the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
DONZIER further teaches the BRI of:
the final downhole measured depth is determined dynamically downhole by the downhole imaging tool without communications with surface equipment of the drilling system (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of TOMASZEWSKI ET AL. (US 20230075804 A1) (hereinafter “TOMASZEWSKI”).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, 15, 20, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUGIURA teaches the BRI of:
multi-dimensional image cross-correlation.
However, DONZIER is lacking the explicit language of:
determining a weighting ratio for the downhole measured depth determined from the correlation computation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements; and determining the final downhole measured depth by combining the downhole measured depth determined from the correlation computation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements based on the weighting ratio.
TOMASZEWSKI teaches a system for determining depth within a borehole and the BRI of:
determining a weighting ratio for the downhole measured depth determined from the correlation computation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements; and determining the final downhole measured depth by combining the downhole measured depth determined from the correlation computation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements based on the weighting ratio (See, e.g., ¶ 0042).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DONZIER to include determining a weighting ratio for the downhole measured depth determined from the correlation computation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements; and determining the final downhole measured depth by combining the downhole measured depth determined from the correlation computation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements based on the weighting ratio.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DONZIER because it would be beneficial to determine depth within a borehole. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 9, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TOMASZEWSKI further teaches the BRI of:
the weighting ratio is determined based on at least one of
rotation per minute (RPM) measurements, the accelerometer measurements, and image resolution (See, e.g., ¶ 0042).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DONZIER to include determining a weighting ratio for the downhole measured depth determined from the image cross-correlation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements; and determining the final downhole measured depth by combining the downhole measured depth determined from the image cross-correlation and the second downhole measured depth determined from the accelerometer measurements based on the weighting ratio.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DONZIER because it would be beneficial to determine depth within a borehole. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of SEHSAH ET AL. (US 20240068353 A1) (hereinafter “SEHSAH”).
With respect to Claim(s) 16, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
DONZIER further teaches the BRI of:
the first sensor and the second sensor, wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are separated by a distance in a depth direction of the borehole (See, e.g., ¶ 0040, 0088-0094; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6-9).
However, DONZIER is lacking the explicit language of:
the sensor(s) includes a transmitter and a receiver.
SEHSAH teaches a drilling tool for determining a real-time image of a borehole during drilling of the borehole and the BRI of:
the sensor(s) includes a transmitter and a receiver (See, e.g., ¶ 0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DONZIER to include the sensor(s) includes a transmitter and a receiver.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify DONZIER because it would be beneficial to determine a real-time image of a borehole during drilling of the borehole. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter (over prior art)
Claim(s) 10 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
None of the cited prior art alone or in combination provides motivation to explicitly teach:
the multi-dimensional image cross-correlation is a zero-normalized cross- correlation (See Specification, e.g., ¶ 0026 | Equation 4 shows the definition of the zero-normalized cross-correlation function.)
of claim(s) 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 07/17/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 9-11, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“102 Rejection of the Claims
Claims 1-7, 11-14 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by DONZIER et al. (US 20180003032 Al, hereinafter "Donzier").
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite, in part,
…
Donzier relates to a method and device for depth positioning downhole and associated measurement log of a hydrocarbon well. See Donzier, Title and Abstract. Donzier discloses a depth positioning method that includes:
"generating a first set of positioning measurements associated with the set of magnetic measurements of the first passive magnetic sensor, and a second set of positioning measurements associated with the set of magnetic measurements of the second passive magnetic sensor." See Donzier, paragraph [0040] and also paragraphs [0088]-[0094].
In a first step S1, the first magnetic sensor provides first signals MAGI x(ti), MAGI y(ti), MAGI z(ti) corresponding to the magnetic field in the three dimensions at a first position X1 and the second magnetic sensor provides second signals MAG2 x(ti), MAG2 y(ti), MAG2 z(ti) corresponding to the magnetic field in the three dimensions at a second position X2. In a second step S2, the first signals and the second signals are filtered (for example to reduce the noise from the signals) and the modulus is calculated (square root of MAGI x(ti)2+MAG1 y(ti)2+MAG1 z(ti)2 and, respectively, square root of MAG2 x(ti)2+MAG2 y(ti)2+MAG2 z(ti)2). See Donzier, paragraph [0088] (emphasis added) and also paragraph [0092].
As disclosed by Donzier in paragraphs [0040] and [0088]-[0094], Donzier relies on three- axis point magnetometers to capture localized vector components along a linear path and performs one-dimensional (1-D) signal alignment on linear signals to correlate magnetic signatures over time. This one-dimensional (1-D) signal correlation is different than "multi- dimensional image cross-correlation on the azimuthal borehole images." The inputs for performing "multi-dimensional image cross-correlation" (e.g., 2-D image cross-correlation) are multi-dimensional azimuthal borehole images (such as two-dimensional azimuthal borehole images), which are different than Donzier's 1-D signal vector inputs for 1-D signal correlation or alignment. Therefore, Donzier does not teach or suggest "each and every" element of independent claim 1 because Donzier does not disclose "performing multi-dimensional image cross-correlation on the azimuthal borehole images" and "determining a time delay based on the multi-dimensional image cross-correlation on the azimuthal borehole images" as recited by amended independent claim 1 (emphasis added).
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Donzier. Amended independent claims 11 and 17 recite similar elements as amended independent claim 1. Thus, Applicant submits that independent claims 11 and 17 are patentable over Donzier for at least the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 12-14 and 18-19 depend from, and includes all the features of, the corresponding independent claims 1, 11 and 17. Thus, dependent claims 2-7, 12-14 and 18-19 are patentable over Donzier for at least the same reasons as independent claims 1, 11 and 17, and further in view of their own features.”.
The underlined argument(s)/remark(s) are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the previous rejected limitations.
-Applicant states
“103 Rejection of the Claims
Claims 8, 9, 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Donzier in view of TOMASZEWSKI et al. (US 20230075804 Al, hereinafter "Tomaszewski").
Applicant submits that claims 8, 9, 15 and 20 depend from base claims that include the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claims 1, 11 and 17. Applicant submits that Tomaszewski does not teach what Donzier is lacking vis-a-vis the base claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claims 8, 9, 15 and 20 are patentable over Donzier and Tomaszewski, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Donzier in view of Sehsah et al. (US 20240068353 Al, hereinafter "Sehsah").
Applicant submits that claim 16 depends from a base claim that include the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claims 1, 11 and 17. Applicant submits that Sehsah does not teach what Donzier is lacking vis-a-vis the base claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claim 16 is patentable over Donzier and Sehsah, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.”.
The underlined argument(s)/remark(s) are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the previous rejected limitations.
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 extension fee 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 RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights