Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/552,239

WELLBORE DATA DEPTH MATCHING USING CHANGE POINT ALGORITHMS

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Sep 25, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, LAM S
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Schlumberger Technology Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1093 granted / 1391 resolved
+10.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1452
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1391 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
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 . In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1-4, 5, 11-18, and 26-27 for further examination. As a result, claims 6-10, 19-25, and 28 are withdrawn from further prosecution. 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 5 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because: The claim recites the sequence of determining the inconsistent in the data of two regions to remove one of the regions. This step sequence as analyzed can “practically be performed in the Human Mind” with/without sketching on paper. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Mental Processes, “A claim that encompasses a Human Performing the step(s) mentally with or without a physical aid recites a mental process”; as a result, the claim recites a mental process that falls within at least one of the abstract idea groupings (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception. The claim, in addition, does contain an additional step of identifying a change point to define the regions. This additional step however does not act to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount significant more to add an inventive concept to the claim. 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. Claim(s) 5 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartetzko et al. (US 10732312) in view of Bartetzko et al. (US 2013/0179081). Bartetzko et al. (‘312) discloses a method, comprising: receiving a well log comprising a signal (FIG. 7: The signal in the reference well 100); identifying in the signal a first change point that demarcates a first signal region and a second signal region (FIG. 4: The signal in the reference well 70 includes two regions demarcated by the change point at the “Top to be predicted” position, wherein the two regions include the first region 106); and producing a modified well log by removing the first signal region from the signal (FIG. 7: In the signal of the target well 110, the signal portion of the first region 106 is removed). Bartetzko et al. (‘312) however is silent on determining that the first signal region is inconsistent in comparison to the second signal region and removing the first signal region from the signal in response to determining that the first signal region is inconsistent in comparison to the second signal region. Bartetzko et al. (‘081) discloses a method relating to borehole logging, including acquiring logging data, wherein the logging data includes depth subintervals defined by change points (FIG. 7), and the data in each interval has a mean differing (inconsistent) from the others, wherein a depth subinterval is selected/unselected based on its mean with respect to a defined cut-off value for locating formation layers (paragraphs [0033]-[0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Bartetzko et al. (‘312) to remove a region of the data in consideration the difference/inconsistent of the subintervals/regions as disclosed by Bartetzko et al. (‘081) in order to gain the accuracy in the logging data of locating of the shale layers (paragraph [0006]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 and 26 are allowed over prior art. Claims 11-18 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. Regarding to claims 1, 11, and 26: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that producing a derivative signal by calculating a derivative of at least a portion of the signal; identifying in the derivative signal a second change point that demarcates a third signal region and a fourth signal region; determining that the third signal region of the derivative signal has a value that is substantially zero; and adjusting the modified well log by removing the third signal region from the signal in response to determining that the third signal region of the derivative signal that the value that is substantially zero is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination. Regarding to claims 1, 18, and 26: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that receiving a second well log comprising a second signal; positioning a first window within the modified well log; positioning a second window at a first location within the second well log; determining a first similarity value between the signal in the first window and the second signal in the second window at the first location; repositioning the second window at a second location within the second well log; determining a second similarity value between the signal in the first window and the second signal in the second window at the second location; selecting the first location or the second location of the second window based at least partially upon the first and second similarity values; and producing a modified second well log based at least partially upon the selected first location or second location of the second window is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 2-4 and 12-17 are allowed because they depend directly/indirectly on claim 1 or 11. CONTACT INFORMATION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151. 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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599155
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF NON-LINEAR COOK TIME ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590890
SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS DEVICE, SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589490
CAPABILITIES FOR ERROR CATEGORIZATION, REPORTING AND INTROSPECTION OF A TECHNICAL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579661
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND STORAGE MEDIUMS FOR FLOW VELOCITY DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578394
BATTERY MANAGEMENT APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+0.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1391 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month