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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements submitted on 9/20/2023, 11/20/2023, and 2/11/2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 1 line 4, “correcting apparent densities from casing and annulus density effect” renders claim 1 indefinite because the plain meaning of performing correcting “ from ” casing and annulus density effect is not semantically clear such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty . As best understood in view of Applicant’s specification and the claim context, “correcting apparent densities from casing and annulus density effect” is interpreted as “correcting apparent densities to correct for casing and annulus density effects .” Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected for the same reasons. Independent claim 8 includes the same language and is likewise rejected for the same reasons. Claims 9-15 depend from claim 8 and are likewise rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 1 r ecites: “[a] method of characterizing at least one downhole feature, comprising: using a gamma-gamma tool, performing at least one scan to characterize casing properties and an annulus density indicator ; and correcting apparent densities from casing and annulus density effect .” The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features are “additional elements.” Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 recit es a method and therefore falls within a statutory category. Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portions of claim 1 fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject M atter Eligibility Guidance , the highlighted subject matter falls within the mathematical concepts category (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) . The recited functions , “ characterize casing properties and an annulus density indicator” using gamma-gamma scan data and “correcting apparent densities ” from casing and annulus density effect are determined to fall within the mathematical relationships sub-category of mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) . C haracterizing of casing properties and an annulus density is fundamentally characterized by mathematical calculations (e.g., as disclosed by Applicant’s specification [0046] mathematical formula for correlating casing thickness to counting rates ) and therefore constitutes mathematical relationships . Correcting apparent densities from casing and annulus density effect and/or based on shallower and deeper measurements is also fundamentally characterized by mathematical relations/calculations (e.g., as disclosed by Applicant’s specification such correction is implemented by “inversion analysis” ([0039]) such as via Monte-Carlo techniques [0054] and/or linear fitting ([0054] and FIGS. 9-10) and may be based on radial response factors calculated via mathematical relations/calculations ([0056]-[0059]) and as disclosed in [0066]-[0068] the apparent densities of the annular components themselves are corrected using mathematical formulas). Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception” (MPEP § 2106.04(d)). MPEP § 2106.04(d) sets forth considerations to be applied in Step 2A, Prong Two for determining whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 1 and applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most applicable of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” including “ using a gamma-gamma tool ” for “ performing at least one scan ” to characterize casing properties and an annulus density indicator in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea in a manner that technologically improves any aspect of a device or system that may be used to implement the highlighted step or a device for implementing the highlighted step such as a signal processing device or a generic computer. Instead, the use of a gamma-gamma tool to scan represent high-level data collection from a particular (gamma-gamma) source (MPEP 2106.05(g)) but not performed in a manner having a particularized relation to the data processing steps (characterization and correction) , and furthermore not clearly related to the “correcting step” (claim 1 does not expressly recite the relation between the characterized “casing properties and an annulus density indicator” and the “casing and annulus density effect.” Examiner further notes that the characterization “performing at least one scan to characterize casing properties …” may be reasonably interpreted as entailing performing the at least one scan for the purpose of characterizing casing properties rather than being a positively recited limitation on the actual function of the gamma-gamma tool. T herefore , the use of a gamma-gamma tool to scan constitute s extra-solution activity that merely links the judicial exception to a technical field and that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, the additional element s are not configured in any particularized manner of implementing downhole imaging to determine annulus properties and correct apparent densities . Regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, claim 1 does not include any such transformation or reduction. Instead, claim 1 as a whole entails receiving input information ( downhole imaging data ), applying standard processing techniques ( computer processing ) to the information to determine annulus characteristics and apparent density correction information with the additional element s failing to provide a meaningful integration of the abstract idea ( the characterization and correction steps ) in an application that transforms an article to a different state. Instead, the additional element s represent extra-solution activity in a broadly encompassing manner that merely links the judicial exception to a technical field and that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 1 do es not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B. Regarding Step 2B, and as explained in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements constitute extra solution activity and therefore fail to result in claim 1 amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception as well as failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional element s in claim 1 appear to be generic and well understood as evidenced by the disclosures of Mosse (US 2011/0253364 A1 ) and Ellis (US 2004/0210393 A1) , each of which teach substantially similar downhole imaging data collection. As explained in the grounds for rejecting claim 1 under 10 2 , Mosse teaches “using a gamma-gamma tool” for “performing at least one scan” in claim 1 . Similarly, Ellis teaches using gamma-gamma downhole imaging (FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 including gamma source and associated LS, SS, and BS gamma detectors ). Therefore, the additional element s do not result in claims 1 amount ing to significantly more than the judicial exception. C laim 1 is therefore not patent eligible. Claims 2-7 , depending from claim 1, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong One). None of dependent claims 2-7 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims. For example, claim 2 further specifies that the correcting apparent density includes correcting apparent short-space and long-spaced densities, which includes no further additional elements and falls within the mathematical concepts exception for same reasons as the correction step in claim 1. Claims 3 characterizes an aspect of the data (nominal annulus thickness) used in correcting apparent densities and does not include any further additional elements and falls within the mathematical concepts exception for same reasons as the correction step in claim 1. Claim 4 further recites that correcting apparent densities includes “ estimating a true annulus thickness from combining short spaced and long spaced densities with an OH density ” which itself falls within the mathematical relations subcategory of the mathematical concepts exception because it is fundamentally characterized by mathematical relations/calculation as disclosed by Applicant’s specification in [0056] -[ 0059]. Claim s 5-7 recite the additional element that the scanning method includes creating a completion classification flag (claims 5) in which the flag includes various annulus properties/substances/components (claims 6-7) . A broadest reasonable interpretation of a completion classification flag entails data indicating/identifying completion elements/materials including the enumerated properties/substances/components such that the creation of such a completion classification flag represents high-level computer functionality (data output of results) and as such constitutes insignificant extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similar to claim 1, i ndependent claims 8 and 16 recite elements that fall within the mathematical concepts exception (Claim 8: “characterizing casing properties and an annulus density indicator from the received pulse of energy; and correcting apparent densities from casing and annulus density effect” Claim 16: “perform a correction of data received based upon a combination of a first shallow measurement and a second deeper measurement” ). However, unlike claim 1 each of claims 8 and 16 include additional elements that sufficiently integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 8 , as interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 8 under 112(b), recites producing from and receiving by a downhole tool a pulse of energy and further recites characterizing casing properties and an annulus density indicator from (based on) the received pulse of energy, such that claim 8 as a whole represents an improvement in the technical field of downhole imaging using pulsed energy. Claim 16 recites details characterizing the structure of the “downhole tool” as being configured to transmit and receive gamma radiation and including at least three gamma radiation detectors, and further characterizes the nature of the detected radiation by the configured downhole tool as including a shallow and a deeper measurement that is processed to perform the correction, such that claim 16 as a whole represents an improvement in the technical field of downhole imaging using multi-depth gamma measurements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (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. Claims 1, 5- 7 , 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mosse (US 2011/0253364 A1) . As to claim 1, as best understood in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 1 under 112(b), Mosse teaches “[a] method of characterizing at least one downhole feature (Abstract and FIG. 2 depicting and describing techniques for determining downhole densities) , comprising: using a gamma-gamma tool (FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 includes gamma ray sensor /source 11 and corresponding LS, SS, and BS detectors/receivers (per [0040] may be a gamma-gamma density tool ) , [0043] describing configuration of sensor/source 11 and the LS, SS, and BS detectors as forming a gamma-gamma tool ) , performing at least one scan (FIG. 2 blocks 252 and 254, [0047]) to characterize casing properties (FIG. 2 blocks 256, 258, 260, and 262, [0052] energy spectrum used to determine apparent density log, which is used for determining casing thickness and casing quality) and an annulus density indicator (FIG. 2 blocks 258, 260, and 264, [0052] apparent density log used to determine density quality indicators including casing thickness ( volume consumed by casing is part of overall downhole annular volume (annulus) per broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Applicant’s specification), cement thickness (indicates a density in terms of general material composition)) ; and correcting apparent densities from casing and annulus density effect (FIG. 2 block 268, [0052] compensated density log generated by the apparent density log and the density quality indicators (i.e., apparent density log data corrected in accordance with the quality indicators) that include densities effects (density quality indicators corresponding to) of casing and other annulus density effects (e.g., cement thickness)) . As to claim 5, Mosse teaches “[t] he method according to claim 1, wherein the performing the at least one scan includes creating a completion classification flag ([0014] -[ 0016] determining quality indicators via measurements includes detecting casing thickness, casing collars, and cement thickness (all indicators /flags of wellbore completion) ) . ” As to claim 6, Mosse teaches “[t] he method according to claim 5, wherein the creating the completion classification flag includes at least one of the following: water in the annulus, cement in the annulus ([0016] determining quality indicators via measurements includes cement thickness) , heavy cement in the annulus, presence of a liner slot. ” As to claim 7, Mosse teaches “[t] he method according to claim 5, wherein the completion classification flag includes at least one of the following: a casing collar ([0015] determining quality indicators via measurements includes detecting casing collars) , a casing de-centralizer and a packer. ” As to claim 16, Mosse teaches “[a] n apparatus (FIG. 1 depicting downhole detection and processing apparatus for wellsite 1) , comprising: a downhole tool (FIG. 1 downhole tool 20, [0041]) configured to transmit and receive gamma radiation into a casing and surrounding annulus of a wellbore (FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 disposed downhole within casing and including gamma sensor/source 11 and LS, SS, and BS detectors configured for emitting and receiving gamma radiation 15 into/from the casing and surrounding annulus including cement 18 , [0042]-[0043]) , the downhole tool having at least three detectors to receive the gamma radiation (FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 includes LS, SS, and BS detectors for receiving radiation from gamma source/sensor 11, [0043]) ; and a computing apparatus (FIG. 1 surface unit 30 including processor 31) configured to receive data from the downhole tool (FIG. 1 surface unit 30 configured to receive data from downhole tool 20, [0044] surface unit 30 processes measurement data received from downhole tool 20) , wherein the computing apparatus is configured (FIG. 1 surface unit 30 includes measurement quality tool 38 including cement quantifier 40, casing quantifier 42, and casing detector 46) to perform a correction of data received (FIG. 2 block 268, [0052] compensated density log generated by the apparent density log and the density quality indicators (i.e., apparent density log data corrected in accordance with the quality indicators) that include densities effects (density quality indicators corresponding to) of casing and other annulus density effects (e.g., cement thickness)) based upon a combination of a first shallow measurement and a second deeper measurement ( [0014] casing thickness (used as quality indicator for correction of apparent densities per FIG. 2) may be determined by measurements (necessarily sh allower due to the closer proximity of the casing ) ; [0016] cement thickness (used as quality indicator for correction of apparent densities per FIG. 2) determined by measurements as apparent density and/or photoelectric effect (necessarily deeper relative to casing measurements per relative proximity to the source and detectors as depicted in FIG . 1) . ” As to claim 18, Mosse teaches “[t] he apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the computing apparatus and the downhole tool are connected (FIG. 1 depicting connection between downhole tool 20 and surface unit 30) through a wire ([0012 ] and claim 5 downhole tool may be wireline tool (i.e., connected by wire)) . ” 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. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosse . As to claim 2, Mosse teaches “[t]he method according to claim 1, ” but does not appear to expressly teach correcting both “an apparent short-spaced density and long-spaced density.” However, Mosse teaches that at least one of “an apparent short-spaced density and long-spaced density” are corrected (FIG. 2 blocks 254, 255, and 256 depicting the generating of the energy spectrum used to generate the apparent density log as being based on “at least one detector” (may include one or more of the multiple of the detectors that per FIG. 1 include short-spaced and long-spaced detectors such that the apparent density log correction in block 268 may include correction of density data of both the short-spaced and long-spaced detectors) .” Mosse discloses that one or more of the back-scatter (very short-spaced), short-spaced and long-spaced measurements are corrected such that Mosse’s method renders the facially evident possibility that both a short-spaced and long-space density may be corrected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, in view of Mosse’s teaching of applying both short-spaced density measurements and long-spaced density measurements for determining formation density characteristics at different depths (e.g., as depicted in FIG. 1) to have applied the optionality disclosed by Mosse in FIG. 2 steps 254-256 in selecting detectors for generating the apparent densities to be corrected, such that it would have been readily evident and obvious to one of ordinary skill to have corrected both a short-spaced density and a long-spaced density. The motivation would have been to more accurately determine formation density at various depths by correcting shallower as well as deeper apparent measurements. As to claim 3, Mosse teaches “[t] he method according to claim 2, wherein the correcting apparent densities further comprises assuming a nominal annulus thickness ([0014] casing thickness that per FIG. 2 is used for correcting apparent densities may be determined based on known casing data and measurements) . ” As to claim 4, Mosse teaches “[t] he method according to claim 3, wherein the correcting apparent densities includes estimating a true annulus thickness (FIG. 2 blocks 260 and 264, [0052] casing thickness and cement thickness (part of annulus) determined; from combining short spaced and long spaced densities (FIG. 3 and [0055]-[0056] long-spaced and short spaced measurements used for determining (reflecting value of) casing thickness; FIG. 4 depicting resultant casing thickness vs depth, [0058] casing thickness determined via backscatter) with an OH density ( [0059]-[0062] and FIGS. 5-7 open hole density data (OH density log) used in combination with cased measurements (per FIGS. 3 and 4 and [0055]-[0056] performed at various (long and short) depths) to ascertain discrepancies for ascertaining correctness of cased hole densities as reflected by casing thickness) . ” Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosse (US 2011/ 0253364 A1) in view of Gilchrist (US 7,294,829 B2). As to claim 8, as best understood in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 8 under 112(b), Mosse teaches “[a] method (Abstract and FIG. 2 depicting and describing techniques for determining downhole densities) , comprising: p roducing ” “e nergy from a downhole tool (FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 includes gamma ray sensor/source 11 (per [0040] may be a gamma-gamma density tool), [0043] describing configuration of sensor/source 11 as included in the gamma-gamma tool.) , the ” “e nergy directed into a casing and annulus of a wellbore (FIG. 1 depicting gamma radiation travel from gamma sensor/source 11 through casing and cement layer 18 outside casing, [0041]) ; receiving the ” “ energy at the downhole tool (FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 includes LS, SS, and BS detectors/receivers, [0043] gamma radiation received by the detectors/receivers ) ; characterizing casing properties (FIG. 2 blocks 256, 258, 260, and 262, [0052] energy spectrum used to determine apparent density log, which is used for determining casing thickness and casing quality) and an annulus density indicator from the received ” “ energy (FIG. 2 blocks 258, 260, and 264, [0052] apparent density log used to determine density quality indicators including casing thickness (volume consumed by casing is part of overall downhole annular volume (annulus) per broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Applicant’s specification), cement thickness (indicates a density in terms of general material composition)) ; and correcting apparent densities from casing and annulus density effect (FIG. 2 block 268, [0052] compensated density log generated by the apparent density log and the density quality indicators (i.e., apparent density log data corrected in accordance with the quality indicators) that include densities effects (density quality indicators corresponding to) of casing and other annulus density effects (e.g., cement thickness)) . ” The embodiments in Mosse such as depicted in FIGS. 1 and 2 depict gamma-gamma measurement tools that release energy in a continuous manner that does not reasonably encompass producing at least one “ pulse” of energy and correspondingly receiving at least one “pulse” of energy. However, Mosse further teaches that it was known in the art to use pulsed neutron capture measurements (inherently includes gamma emission resulting from neutron capture) as a means to determine downhole densities ([0005]) . Furthermore, Gilchrist discloses that it was known in the art to determine downhole densities using pulsed neutron and gamma detection (col. 2 lines 13-16; FIG. 1, col. 4 lines 20-21) in which the source emits energy pulses (pulses of moving neutrons) and the tool receives corresponding gamma radiation pulses ( responses corresponding to the emitted pulses) (col. 1 line 59 through col. 2 line 16; FIG. 1 pulsed neutron source 18, col. 4 lines 27-30) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Gilchrist’s teaching of using pulsed energy for downhole density determinations in a configuration in which received gamma radiation is ultimately used for determining density to the method taught by Mosse in which gamma-gamma detection is utilized for characterizing casing properties and an annulus density indicator, such that in combination the method includes producing “at least one pulse of energy” result ing in receiving a corresponding “at least one pulse of energy” that is used to characterize casing properties and an annulus density. Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design option for generating gamma radiation responses related to density and general downhole material properties to achieve predictable results. As to claim 9, the combination of Mosse and Gilchrist teaches “[t] he method according to claim 8, wherein the correcting apparent densities include s correcting apparent short-spaced densities ( Mosse : FIG. 2 blocks 254, 255, and 256 depicting the generating of the energy spectrum used to generate the apparent density log as being based on “at least one detector” (may any of the detectors that per FIG. 1 include short-spaced and long-spaced detectors such that the apparent density log correction in block 268 ) ) . ” As to claim 10, the combination of Mosse and Gilchrist teaches “[t] he method according to claim 8, wherein the correcting apparent densities include s correcting apparent long-spaced densities ( Mosse : FIG. 2 blocks 254, 255, and 256 depicting the generating of the energy spectrum used to generate the apparent density log as being based on “at least one detector” (may be any of the detectors that per FIG. 1 include short-spaced and long-spaced detectors such that the apparent density log correction in block 268 ) ) . ” As to claim 11, the combination of Mosse and Gilchrist teaches “[t] he method according to claim 8, wherein the downhole tool produces gamma radiation ( Mosse : FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 includes gamma ray sensor/source 11 (per [0040] may be a gamma-gamma density tool), [0043] describing configuration of sensor/source 11 as included in the gamma-gamma tool) . ” As to claim 12, the combination of Mosse and Gilchrist teaches “[t] he method according to claim 8, wherein the downhole tool has three detectors ( Mosse : FIG. 1 downhole tool 20 includes LS, SS, and BS detectors, [0043]) . ” As to claim 13, the combination of Mosse and Gilchrist teaches “[t] he method according to claim 8, wherein the characterizing casing properties and an annulus density indicator from the received pulse of energy further comprises creating a completion classification flag ( Mosse : [0014]-[0016] determining quality indicators via measurements includes detecting casing thickness, casing collars, and cement thickness (all indicators/flags of wellbore completion)) . ” As to claim 14, the combination of Mosse and Gilchrist teaches “[t] he method according to claim 13, wherein the creating the completion classification flag includes at least one of the following: water in the annulus, cement in the annulus ( Mosse : [0016] determining quality indicators via measurements includes cement thickness) , heavy cement in the annulus, presence of a liner slot. ” As to claim 15, the combination of Mosse and Gilchrist teaches “[t] he method according to claim 13, wherein the classification flag includes at least one of the following: a casing collar ( Mosse : [0015] determining quality indicators via measurements includes detecting casing collars) , a casing de-centralizer and a packer. ” Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosse in view of Mamtimin (US 2021/0373195 A1) . As to claim 17, Mosse teaches “[t] he apparatus according to claim 16, ” but is silent regarding the energy ranges of the measurement tool and therefore does not expressly teach “ wherein the downhole tool is configured to transmit energy in an energy range below 1 MeV. ” Mosse teaches investigating different depths of investigation (FIG. 1 depicting various measurement depths of waves 15) and it was well-known (as well as being a technical requirement) prior to the effective filing date that different measurement energy values/ranges are selectably used for selecting available depth of investigation ranges. For example, Mamtimin discloses a method/system for using gamma-gamma detectors for determining formation density (Abstract) in which energy channels are selected for measuring layers and in which the energy channels (source transmission energy) includes a range below 1 MeV ([0031] different energy levels used for different depths of investigation including an energy channel of 0.35 MeV for investigating at depth of 4 cm) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Mamtimin’s teaching of using various energy levels for investigating different layers at different depths including values below 1 MeV to the apparatus taught by Mosse , such that in combination the downhole tool is configured to transmit energy in an energy range below 1 MeV . The motivation would have been to select a transmission energy level that corresponds to a shallower desired density profile as suggested by Mamtimin . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2507 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Andrew Schechter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /MATTHEW W. BACA/ Examiner, Art Unit 285 7 /ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857