DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 10/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception because the amendments “outputting … an output image comprising the at least one image overlayed with a segmentation mask” cannot be performed in the human mind and the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
The Examiner agrees; therefore, the previous 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection, Applicant argues that Maher does not teach or suggest “outputting, as a user interface, an output image comprising the at least one image overlayed with a segmentation mask,” as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Maher teaches displaying scanned core images at a user interface and displaying images of core samples in the UI. For example, Maher discloses the input and output devices 204 are configured to receive commands for controlling the operation of the scanner, receive input from a user to add or modify data, and to display results, data parameters, or other information. (paragraph 18) The scanner UI displays scanned images with overlays such as crop lines and templates. (paragraphs 19-21) The UI displays depth referencing boxes and lithology segments on top of the image. (paragraphs 24-26) and reports display images and classification outputs. (paragraph 38) Therefore, Maher teaches outputting an image to a UI.
Maher further discloses that the output image includes the at least one image of the core sample, such as displaying of images of core samples. (paragraph 18) The core sample image is displayed behind graphic overlays. (paragraphs 19-21) The depth referencing and lithology interfaces display the core image under overlays. (paragraphs 24-25) Therefore, Maher teaches displaying images of core samples in the UI.
Further, Maher discloses a segmentation mask. The segmentation model is configured to identify rock, non-rock, and depth marker segments of a row in a core box and may provide each row in the core box with a mapping of each pixel 1010 to a rock/depth-marker/non-rock classification value. Other suitable neural network configurations or machine learning algorithms are also contemplated. (paragraph 32) Maher also shows segmentation output displayed as overlaid regions. Depth marker boxes are displayed overlaid on top of the core image. (paragraph 24) Lithology segments 802 are drawn over core images. (paragraph 25) Segmented pixels are visualized (pixels 1010) and mapping of pixel classes is produced. (paragraph 32) Even though boxes or segments are used instead of masks, these are overlays corresponding to segmentation outputs. Therefore, Maher teaches overlaying segmentation output (pixel classification and labeled segments) on the core image.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,790,506. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader and encompassed by claims 1-20 of the patented claims. Therefore, the claims of the present application are anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maher (WO 2019/167030 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Maher discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, at least one image of a core sample, wherein the at least one image comprises a plurality of regions; (figure 2; paragraphs 16-18; receive a core sample)
determining, based on the plurality of regions of the at least one image, one or more attributes of the core sample, wherein one or more regions of the plurality of regions comprise the one or more attributes; and (abstract; a server for logging the properties of core samples and managing instrumentation and equipment; a scanner to scan the core samples to generate images of the core samples)
outputting, at a user interface, an output image comprising the at least one image overlayed with a segmentation mask, (paragraphs 18-21, 24-26, 32 and 38) the segmentation mask indicating the one or more regions and the one or more attributes of the core sample. (paragraphs 16-18: output device; paragraph 29: The image data, including individual image data, and the combined stitched image data, may be stored in the scanner memory for further processing. The scanner processor is further configured to apply image analysis to the images or the image data from the optical camera to identify properties of the core samples)
Regarding claim 2, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein the at least one image comprises a plurality of images of the core sample, and wherein determining the one or more attributes of the core sample comprises determining, based on the plurality of images of the core sample, the one or more attributes of the core sample. (paragraph 29; For example, the scanner processor 220 may employ an image analysis subsystem capable of extracting optical features, such as color, shape, and texture, and applying machine learning models to generate predicted rock classifications such as lithology, alteration, and geotechnical parameters.)
Regarding claim 3, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein determining the one or more attributes of the core sample comprises determining, via at least one machine learning model, and based on the plurality of regions of the at least one image, the one or more attributes of the core sample. (paragraph 13 and 29)
Regarding claim 4, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein the at least one machine learning model comprises a segmentation model, a neural network, or a support vector machine. (paragraphs 32 and 34)
Regarding claim 5, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein the one or more attributes comprise a width based on the one or more regions of the plurality of regions. (paragraph 21)
Regarding claim 6, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein the one or more regions are associated with one or more core edges, one or more fractures, one or more broken zones, one or more beddings, one or more veins, or an orientation line of the core sample. (paragraphs 68)
Regarding claim 7, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein an image overlay comprising the one or more regions, or a mapping between the one or more regions and the one or more attributes. (paragraphs 18-21, 24-26, 32 and 38)
Regarding claim 9, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein determining the one or more attributes of the core sample comprises: classifying each pixel of the plurality of pixels, wherein one or more subsets of the plurality of pixels are classified as comprising the one or more attributes. (paragraphs 30-34)
Regarding claim 12, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein outputting the indication of the one or more attributes of the core sample comprises outputting one or more of: a segmentation mask indicative of the one or more attributes, an image overlay indicative of the one or more attributes, or a mapping of the one or more attributes to one or more portions of the core sample. (paragraph 33; The image analysis subsystem crops the segments of pixels identified as containing rock, into cropped segments. Adjacent cropped segments may overlap. The pixels may be assigned cropped segments.)
Regarding claim 13, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein receiving, via a user interface, one or more user edits (read as alter) to one or more of: the segmentation masks, the image overlay, or the mapping. (paragraphs 24-25)
Regarding claim 14, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein training, based on the one or more user edits, at least one machine learning model. (paragraph 13 and 29)
Regarding claim 16, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein the one or more structural features are associated with one or more measurements, and wherein the one or more measurements are based on one or more regions of the plurality of regions of the at least one image. (figure 7; paragraphs 22-24)
Regarding claim 19, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein the one or more structural features are compositionally distinct or texturally distinct within the core sample. (paragraphs 29, 37 and 54)
Regarding claim 20, Maher discloses the claimed invention wherein outputting the output image of the one or more structural features of the core sample comprises one or more of:
outputting an image overlay indicative of the one or more structural features; or
outputting a mapping indicative of the one or more structural features. (paragraph 33; The image analysis subsystem crops the segments of pixels identified as containing rock, into cropped segments. Adjacent cropped segments may overlap. The pixels may be assigned cropped segments.)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 10-11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher in view of Sung (US 10,753,918).
Regarding claim 10, Maher discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the indication of the one or more attributes of the core sample is indicative of a degree of jointing or fracturing in the core sample.
In related art, Sung discloses an indication of the one or more attributes of the core sample is indicative of a degree of jointing or fracturing in the core sample. (col. 3, lines 26-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Sung into the teachings of Maher for effective integration of physical reservoir rock interpretation data into reservoir formation modeling.
Regarding claim 11, Maher discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more attributes comprise one or more fractures or one or more broken zones.
In related art, Sung discloses the one or more attributes comprise one or more fractures or one or more broken zones. (col. 3, lines 26-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Sung into the teachings of Maher for effective integration of physical reservoir rock interpretation data into reservoir formation modeling.
Regarding claim 17, Maher discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more structural features comprise a fracture, a physical break, or a separation in the core sample.
In related art, Sung discloses one or more structural features comprise a fracture, a physical break, or a separation in the core sample. (col. 3, lines 26-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Sung into the teachings of Maher for effective integration of physical reservoir rock interpretation data into reservoir formation modeling.
Regarding claim 18, Maher discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more structural features are associated with one or more minerals within the core sample.
In related art, Sung discloses one or more structural features are associated with one or more minerals within the core sample. (col. 3, lines 26-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Sung into the teachings of Maher for effective integration of physical reservoir rock interpretation data into reservoir formation modeling.
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 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 BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665