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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paulsen (A Simple method for oriented drill core by correlating features in whole-core scans and oriented borehole-wall imagery (IDS))
Regarding claim 1, Paulsen teaches an orienting processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire rock image data indicating a rock image obtained by imaging a surface of a rock which is drilled (page 1234: the core surface is scanned using Corescan® equipment leased from DMT..), borehole image data indicating a borehole image obtained by imaging a surface of a borehole at a location where the rock was present (abstract: oriented borehole imagery), and orientation information indicating an orientation in which the surface of the borehole is imaged (abstract: oriented borehole imagery and page 1235: oriented borehole televiewer (BHTV) logs to determine core orientation); extract feature data related to a pattern of the surface of the rock from the rock image, and extract feature data related to a pattern of the surface of the borehole image (page 1236: the stitched core and BHTV imagery is examined for features that provide an unambiguous template for drill-core reorientation (Fig. 5). … we matched fractures, bedding, and clasts); and perform an alignment between the pattern of the surface of the rock and the pattern of the surface of the borehole based on the extracted feature data, and identify an orientation in which the surface of the rock is imaged based on a result of the alignment and the orientation information (page 1236: intact core interval is reoriented by rotating core features to match correlative structures in the oriented BHTV image… angular difference for each as measured on stitched-core and BHTV is plotted vs. depth for each stitched core, and this plot is examined to identify and exclude any strongly anomalous picks. All angular differences are then used to calculate a single average rotation angle to restore the entire stitched-core interval to true geographic coordinates. Because the rotation angle is referenced to the red scribe line on the core, any core structures or samples measured with respect to the red scribe can also be reoriented to North using this rotation angle).
Regarding claim 7, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 8. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Paulsen’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (Introduction: The acquisition of high-resolution whole-core scans allows accurate measurement of feature orientation and unambiguous correlation to borehole-wall imagery, implies there is program performing the steps).
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuuchi et al. (US 20170252213).
Regarding claim 2, Paulsen does not teach the orienting processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform the alignment between the pattern of the surface of the rock and the pattern of the surface of the borehole using a phase-only correlation method.
Furuuchi teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform the alignment between the pattern of the surface of the rock and the pattern of the surface of the borehole using a phase-only correlation method (p0089: align the images with each other by using various image processing methods such as a phase-only correlation method).
Paulsen and Furuuchi are combinable because they both deal with image alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Yun with the teaching of Furuuchi for purpose of aligning images.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen in view of Furuuchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rudin et al. (US 8106968).
Regarding claim 3, Paulsen in view of Furuuchi does not teach the orienting processing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform the alignment by approximating the patterns to a shape of a sine wave.
Rudin teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform the alignment by approximating the patterns to a shape of a sine wave (abstract: determines the alignment of the various shapes, and, corresponds or matches the shapes in the image with the shapes in the pattern. This pattern detection process may be used for calibration or distortion correction in optical devices. Rudin does not explicitly disclose the shape being sine wave, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose sine wave shape. Applicant has not disclosed that sine wave shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Paulsen in view of Furuuchi with the teaching of Rudin for purpose of calibration or distortion correction in optical device.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berti et al. (US 20230295692).
Regarding claim 4, Paulsen does not teach the orienting processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract the feature data while emphasizing an edge of the pattern of the surface of the rock and an edge of the pattern of the surface of the borehole by performing contrast adjustment on the rock image and the borehole image.
Berti teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract the feature data while emphasizing an edge of the pattern of the surface of the rock and an edge of the pattern of the surface of the borehole by performing contrast adjustment on the rock image and the borehole image (p0212: contrast adjustment, signal-averaging and other noise reduction capability, etc.), manual, semi-automated, or fully-automated edge detection).
Paulsen and Berti are combinable because they both deal with image alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Paulsen with the teaching of Berti for purpose of provide systems for addressing the shortcomings of current molecular diagnostic testing capabilities as they relate to population-scale monitoring of infectious disease (p0004).
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 9906654 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Paulsen does not teach the orienting processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract the feature data while emphasizing an edge of the pattern of the surface of the rock and an edge of the pattern of the surface of the borehole by performing filtering on the rock image and the borehole image.
Taylor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to extract the feature data while emphasizing an edge of the pattern of the surface of the rock and an edge of the pattern of the surface of the borehole by performing filtering on the rock image and the borehole image (col.5, Lines:5-10: perform edge detection on the scanned image (e.g., using canny filter)).
Paulsen and Taylor are combinable because they both deal with image alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Paulsen with the teaching of Taylor for purpose of detecting defects in white spaces (non-printed spaces) of printed sheets using a scanner.
Regarding claim 6, Paulsen in view of Taylor teaches the orienting processing device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform the filtering using a Canny filter (Taylor: (col.5, Lines:5-10: perform edge detection on the scanned image (e.g., using canny filter)).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights