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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 9 of claim 1, delete “dosing,”
A similar correction should be made in claims 8 and 14
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-13 and 15-20 depend from one of independent claims 1, 8 and 14 and are objected for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-6, 8, 12, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2023/0160269 to Mezghani et al. (Mezghani) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/018161 to Stepanov et al. (Stepanov) and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0319257 to Francois et al. (Francois).
Claims 1 and 14
With regard to obtaining cuttings samples from the plurality of depths while drilling the wellbore in the subsurface formation; Mezghani teaches obtaining samples of drilling cuttings from multiple depths (pars. 22, 45).
With regard to performing the following operations for each of the cuttings samples, loading a cuttings sample into a viewing area of a microscope coupled to an image capture device and a computer having a learning machine, Mezghani teaches transferring the drilled cuttings to the sample tray and to an area for measurement, using a conveyor belt, where measurements are taken with a camera and a microscope and analyzed using a central processing unit that uses data stored in a database (pars. 34, 35, 38; Fig. 4, conveyor belt 79, UV camera 81, infrared camera 83; par. 39, microscope).
With regard to performing analyses on the cuttings sample, Mezghani teaches specific properties of the drilled cuttings are analyzed by the central processing unit (par. 38).
With regard to capturing, via the image capture device, a plurality of images of the cuttings sample through the microscope; Mezghani teaches capturing images with cameras (pars. 39, 51).
Mezghani does not teach causing, via a controller, dosing, one or more autodosers coupled to one or more fluid storage vessels to dose each of the cuttings sample with one or more chemicals.
Stepanov teaches control electronics to control an automated sample treatment unit to perform automated washing of samples with a solvent (Fig. 1, control electronics 122, pneumatic actuators and controls 116, sample collection tray 120, automated sample treatment unit 126; pars. 14, 16; Figs. 3A, 3B; pars. 18, 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include controlling an automated sample treatment unit, as taught by Stepanov, because then measurements would have been accomplished more efficiently (Stepanov, pars. 2-5).
Mezghani does not teach determining, via the learning machine, one or more properties of each of the cuttings samples based on the plurality of images, and determining, via the learning machine, a mineralogical composition of each of the cuttings samples based on the plurality of images; and outputting a standardized cuttings report generated by the learning machine based on the one or more properties and the mineralogical composition.
Francois teaches training a deep learning model to analyze images of cuttings to predict rock type and other properties of an unknown rock sample (pars. 28-30, 38-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include analysis of cuttings with a deep learning model, as taught by Francois, because then the analysis would have been less biased and faster (Francois, par. 2).
Francois teaches generating a lithology profile based on the determination of rock type and rock properties (pars. 40, 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include a lithology profile, as taught by Francois, because then the analysis would have been less biased and faster (Francois, par. 2).
Claims 3 and 16
Mezghani teaches that loading the cuttings sample into the viewing area comprises loading an autoloader configured to move the cuttings sample into the viewing area of the microscope (par. 34; Fig. 4, conveyor belt 79).
Claims 4 and 17
Mezghani teaches determining, via the learning machine, one more standardized cuttings descriptors based, at least in part, on the performed analyses (par. 38).
Claim 5 and 18
Mezghani teaches loading each cuttings sample into a cartridge configured for placement into the autoloader, wherein the autoloader is configured to move the cartridge into the viewing area of the microscope (pars. 32-34).
Claims 6, 12 and 19
Mezghani does not teach associating, via the learning machine, each image of the plurality of images to a depth in the wellbore; determining, via the learning machine, one or more properties of each of the cuttings samples based, at least in part, on the plurality of images; and determining, via the learning machine, a mineralogy at one or more depths in the wellbore based, at least in part, on the plurality of images and the one or more properties of each of the cuttings samples.
Francois teaches training a deep learning model to analyze images of cuttings to predict rock type and other properties of an unknown rock sample (pars. 28-30, 38-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include analysis of cuttings with a deep learning model, as taught by Francois, because then the analysis would have been less biased and faster (Francois, par. 2).
Claim 8
With regard to a microscope coupled to an image capture device; Mezghani teaches a microscope and cameras for collecting data (pars. 35, 39).
With regard to an autoloader configured to place a cuttings sample obtained from the wellbore within a viewing area of the microscope; Mezghani teaches transferring the drilled cuttings to the sample tray and to an area for measurement, using a conveyor belt (pars. 34, 35, 39).
With regard to a processor; Mezghani teaches a central processing unit (Fig. 4, central processing unit 21; par. 37).
With regard to a computer-readable medium having instructions executable by the processor, the instructions including: instructions to move, via the autoloader, the cuttings sample into the viewing area, Mezghani teaches transferring the drilled cuttings to the sample tray and to an area for measurement, using a conveyor belt (pars. 34, 35, 39).
With regard to instructions to perform one or more analyses on the cuttings sample, Mezghani teaches specific properties of the drilled cuttings are analyzed by the central processing unit (par. 38).
Mezghani does not teach causing, via a controller, dosing, one or more autodosers coupled to one or more fluid storage vessels to dose each of the cuttings sample with one or more chemicals.
Stepanov teaches control electronics to control an automated sample treatment unit to perform automated washing of samples with a solvent (Fig. 1, control electronics 122, pneumatic actuators and controls 116, sample collection tray 120, automated sample treatment unit 126; pars. 14, 16; Figs. 3A, 3B; pars. 18, 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include controlling an automated sample treatment unit, as taught by Stepanov, because then measurements would have been accomplished more efficiently (Stepanov, pars. 2-5).
Mezghani does not teach instructions to generate, via a learning machine, a standardized cuttings report based, at least in part, on the analyses.
Francois teaches training a deep learning model to analyze images of cuttings to predict rock type and other properties of an unknown rock sample (pars. 28-30, 38-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include analysis of cuttings with a deep learning model, as taught by Francois, because then the analysis would have been less biased and faster (Francois, par. 2).
Francois teaches generating a lithology profile based on the determination of rock type and rock properties (pars. 40, 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include a lithology profile, as taught by Francois, because then the analysis would have been less biased and faster (Francois, par. 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani in view of Stepanov and Francois as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0089153 to Teodorescu (Teodorescu).
Claims 2 and 15
Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois teach all the limitations of claims 1 upon which claim 2 depends and claim 14 upon which claim 15 depends. Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois do not teach that performing the analyses further comprises: illuminating the cuttings sample via one or more light sources at a plurality of light spectra; and dosing, via one or more autodosers coupled to one or more fluid storage vessels, each cuttings sample with one or more chemicals.
Teodorescu teaches a light source and multiple light spectra (Fig. 2, light source 220; par. 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting combination, as taught by Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois, to include a light source with multiple light spectra, as taught by Teodorescu, because then information about other substances in the cuttings would have become apparent (Teodorescu, par. 23).
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani in view of Stepanov and Francois as applied to claims 6, 12 and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0218888 to Schonberger et al. (Schonberger).
Claims 7, 13 and 20
Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois teach all the limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 7 depends, claim 12 upon which claim 13 depends and claim 10 upon which claim 20 depends.
Mezghani does not teach generating the standardized cuttings report based, at least in part, on the one or more properties of each of the cuttings and the mineralogy at the one or more depths. Francois teaches generating a lithology profile (pars. 40, 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting, as taught by Mezghani, to include a lithology profile, as taught by Francois, because then the analysis would have been less biased and faster (Francois, par. 2).
Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois do not teach performing a subsurface operation based on the standardized cuttings report. Schonberger teaches that the report can be provided to a mud logging distributing list. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting analysis combination, as taught by Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois, to include providing a report on cuttings, as taught by Schonberger, because then the results could have been analyzed to determine physical aspects of the well (Mezghani, par. 1).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani in view of Stepanov Francois as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Teodorescu.
Claim 9
Mezghani, Stepanov and Schonberger teach all the limitations of claim 8 upon which claim 9 depends. Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois do not teach one or more light sources, wherein the instructions to perform the one or more analyses comprise instructions to illuminate the cuttings sample in one or more light spectra. Teodorescu teaches a light source and multiple light spectra (Fig. 2, light source 220; par. 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting combination, as taught by Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois, to include a light source with multiple light spectra, as taught by Teodorescu, because then information about other substances in the cuttings would have become apparent (Teodorescu, par. 23).
Claim 11
Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois teach all the limitations of claim 8 upon which claim 11 depends. Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois do not teach that the image capture device is a CCD camera. Teodorescu teaches a CCD camera (col. 4, lines 46-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drill cutting combination, as taught by Mezghani, Stepanov and Francois, to include a CCD camera, as taught by Teodorescu, because then a well know camera would have been available to acquire images.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, see pages 8 and 9, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stepanov.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights