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 Amendment
The amendment was filed on 2/19/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19-20 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 filed under Remarks on pages 8-9 on 2/19/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See 35 USC 103 rejection now in combination with US 9,619,731 to Akama et al.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costes, et al. (“A contrario dip picking for borehole imaging”, Geophysics, col. 86, no. 4, pages V339-V351) (hereafter, “Costes”) in combination with US 9,619,731 to Akama et al. (hereafter, “Akama”).
With regard to claim 1 Costes discloses a method of refining manually selected values of physical parameters associated with a manual dip of an azimuthal wellbore image (Figure 3, abstract), the method comprising: perturbating one or more of the manually selected values (page 339, right column first paragraph; page 340 left column, second paragraph, page 342 left column) [to generate respective candidate sinusoidal curves, wherein the manually selected values are generated from at least one manually selected dip]; selecting a portion of the azimuthal wellbore image based in part on the perturbated values (borehole image, Figure 2, page 340 left column, second full paragraph, and right column, proposed method) and the sinusoidal curves (Figures 2c and 2d; page 343 section Hough voting, and page 7 where parameter space is chosen to detect sinusoidal curves and each point in the parameter space is associated with respective set of physical parameters); performing a Hough transform of the selected portion of the azimuthal wellbore image into a parameter space comprising a plurality of points, thereby determining respective cumulative counts for one or more of the plurality of points in the parameter space (Figure 5, “dequantization and filtering” section on page 342, page 343 “Hough voting” section, page 345 “a contrario dip detection” section); selecting a point based in part on its respective cumulative count (page 346 section “local dip refinement”); calculating refined values of the physical parameters associated with the selected point (refine values are calculated throughout the reference, dip and dip with exclusion on page 346); and returning the refined values as the physical parameters of a refined dip (Figure 3 on page 341 where last step is local dip refinement; page 346 section “local dip refinement”. page 349 right column, and Algorithm 6).
However, Costes does not expressly teach generate respective candidate sinusoidal curves, wherein the manually selected values are generated from at least one manually selected dip. Akama teaches generate respective candidate sinusoidal curves, wherein the manually selected values are generated from at least one manually selected dip (col. 5 lines 33-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Costes’ reference to have values generated from manually selected dip of Akama’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to link the chosen points to define a continuous symmetry axis that defines the transverse component of the dip at any depth, as suggested by Akama at col. 5 lines 30-33.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Akama with Costes to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2 Costes in combination with Akama discloses generating one or more candidate dips from the perturbated values; wherein: selecting the portion of the azimuthal wellbore image is based in part on the one or more candidate dips (Costes: page 342 left column).
With regard to claim 3 Costes in combination with Akama discloses wherein the selected portion of the azimuthal wellbore image comprises at least one of a sinusoidal upper boundary and a sinusoidal lower boundary (Costes: algorithm 1 on page 341, Figures 2c and 2d).
With regard to claim 4 Costes in combination with Akama discloses wherein: the parameter space is chosen to detect the sinusoidal curves; and each point in the parameter space is uniquely associated with a respective set of physical parameters (Costes: Figures 2c and 2d; page 343 section Hough voting, and page 7 where parameter space is chosen to detect sinusoidal curves and each point in the parameter space is associated with respective set of physical parameters).
With regard to claim 5 Costes in combination with Akama discloses wherein: the plurality of physical parameters comprise a first depth, a first amplitude, and a first azimuth; and the parameter space is chosen to have dimensions comprising a second depth, a second amplitude, and a second azimuth (Costes: page 339 right column first few lines, last paragraph of section “Hough voting” on page 343 left column continuing to top of right column).
With regard to claim 6 Costes in combination with Akama discloses wherein: perturbating the one or more of the manually selected values comprises perturbating a manually selected value of the first depth to define a depth range; and selecting the portion of the azimuthal wellbore image comprises retaining only the portion of the azimuthal wellbore image within the defined depth range (Costes: page 342 left column top few lines; and section “dequantization and filtering”, perturbating one or more of the manually selected values; and selecting a portion of the azimuthal borehole image).
With regard to claims 7 and 13, claims 7 and 13 are rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 7 and 13. Costes discloses a device and a computer discussed in Abstract and Introduction sections, left column on page 348, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 8 and 14, claims 8 and 14 are rejected same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claims 8 and 14, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 9 and 15, claims 9 and 15 are rejected same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claims 9 and 15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 10 and 16, claims 10 and 16 are rejected same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claims 10 and 16, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 11 and 17, claims 11 and 17 are rejected same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claims 11 and 17, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 12 and 18, claims 12 and 18 are rejected same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claims 12 and 18, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 19-20 Costes in combination with Akama discloses wherein the selected portion of the azimuthal wellbore image comprises a peripheral area defined by the sinusoidal curves (Costes: Figs 2c-2d, 5; borehole image, Figure 2, page 340 left column, second full paragraph; Akama: Fig. 6, col. 10 lines 37-44, claims 5 and 12).
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 SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights