Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/9/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,789. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the claims of US Patent No. 12,060,789 as shown below:
5. With respect to claim 1, the mapping is shown as below, the mapping is based on US patent no. 12,060,789:
A system comprising: a processor [Claim 1, lines 1-2, (based on the publication)]; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: decoupling a first multi-components tensor and a second multi-components tensor, the first multi-components tensor corresponding to a first set of measurements receivable at a first antenna from a third antenna in a wellbore, the second multi-components tensor corresponding to a second set of measurements receivable at a second antenna from the third antenna [Claim 1, lines 15-18, 30-35]; determining, using the decoupled first multi-components tensor and the second multi-components tensor, a scaling factor [Claim 1, lines 36-38]; applying the scaling factor to: a raw measurement of the first antenna or the second antenna to generate and decouple a third multi-components tensor for controlling a wellbore operation; or decoupled components of a fourth multi-components tensor for controlling the wellbore operation [Claim 1, lines 39-53].
6. Claims 2-8 are mapped as follow:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise receiving the first set of measurements and the second set of measurements, wherein the first set of measurements are associated with a first set of azimuth angles of the first antenna with respect to a longitudinal axis of a wellbore tool, wherein the second set of measurements are associated with a second set of azimuth angles of the second antenna with respect to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are positionable on the wellbore tool that is positioned in air [Claim 1, lines 7-17].
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the first set of azimuth angles and the second set of azimuth angles are different, and wherein the operation of determining the scaling factor comprises determining the scaling factor based on the first set of azimuth angles associated with the first antenna and the second set of azimuth angles associated with the second antenna [Claim 2].
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the first antenna is a first electromagnetic antenna and the second antenna is a second electromagnetic antenna, and wherein the first electromagnetic antenna and the second electromagnetic antenna are positionable on a wellbore tool that is positioned in the wellbore for making the raw measurement [Claim 1, lines 20-30, 40-48].
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the first antenna is a first electromagnetic antenna and the second antenna is a second electromagnetic antenna, and wherein the fourth multi-components tensor corresponds to first raw measurements from the first electromagnetic antenna and to second raw measurements from the second electromagnetic antenna [Claim 1, lines 8-18, 39-46].
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the operation of determining the scaling factor comprises determining an average scaling factor by averaging a first scaling factor and a second scaling factor, wherein the operation of applying the scaling factor includes applying the averaged scaling factor to the raw measurement, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first scaling factor using a first component of the first multi-components tensor and a second component of the second multi-components tensor, wherein the first component corresponds to the second component; and determining the second scaling factor using a third component of the first multi-components tensor and a fourth component of the second multi-components tensor, wherein the third component corresponds to the fourth component [Claim 3].
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the operation of applying the scaling factor to the decoupled components of the fourth multi-components tensor includes: determining a first component-based scaling factor and a second component-based scaling factor from a first scaling factor and a second scaling factor; applying the first component-based scaling factor to a fifth component of the fourth multi-components tensor, wherein the fifth component corresponds to the first component and the second component; and applying the second component-based scaling factor to a sixth component of the fourth multi-components tensor, wherein the sixth component corresponds to the third component and the fourth component [Claim 5].
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, using the decoupled third multi-components tensor or the fourth multi-components tensor, a resistivity of a subterranean formation in which the wellbore is formed; inverting, using the decoupled third multi-components tensor or the fourth multi-components tensor, a geology of the subterranean formation; and controlling a wellbore operation using the resistivity and the inverted geology [Claim 7].
7. With respect to claim 9, the mapping is shown as below:
A method comprising: decoupling a first multi-components tensor and a second multi-components tensor, the first multi-components tensor corresponding to a first set of measurements received at a first antenna from a third antenna in a wellbore, the second multi-components tensor corresponding to a second set of measurements received at a second antenna from the third antenna [Claim 1, lines 15-18, 30-35]; determining, using the decoupled first multi-components tensor and the second multi-components tensor, a scaling factor [Claim 1, lines 36-38]; applying the scaling factor to: a raw measurement of the first antenna or the second antenna to generate and decouple a third multi-components tensor for controlling a wellbore operation; or decoupled components of a fourth multi-components tensor for controlling the wellbore operation [Claim 1, lines 39-53].
7. Claims 10-15 are mapped as follow:
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising receiving the first set of measurements and the second set of measurements, wherein the first set of measurements are associated with a first set of azimuth angles of the first antenna with respect to a longitudinal axis of a wellbore tool, wherein the second set of measurements are associated with a second set of azimuth angles of the second antenna with respect to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are positioned on the wellbore tool that is positioned in air [Claim 8, lines 1-10].
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the first set of azimuth angles and the second set of azimuth angles are different, and wherein determining the scaling factor comprises determining the scaling factor based on the first set of azimuth angles associated with the first antenna and the second set of azimuth angles associated with the second antenna [Claim 9].
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the first antenna is a first electromagnetic antenna and the second antenna is a second electromagnetic antenna, and wherein the first electromagnetic antenna and the second electromagnetic antenna are positioned on a wellbore tool that is positioned in the wellbore for making the raw measurement [Claim 8, lines 1-15].
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the first antenna is a first electromagnetic antenna and the second antenna is a second electromagnetic antenna, and wherein the fourth multi-components tensor corresponds to first raw measurements from the first electromagnetic antenna and to second raw measurements from the second electromagnetic antenna [Claim 8, lines 1-15].
14. The method of claim 9, wherein determining the scaling factor comprises determining an average scaling factor by averaging a first scaling factor and a second scaling factor, wherein applying the scaling factor includes applying the averaged scaling factor to the raw measurement, and wherein the method further comprises: determining the first scaling factor using a first component of the first multi-components tensor and a second component of the second multi-components tensor, wherein the first component corresponds to the second component; and determining the second scaling factor using a third component of the first multi-components tensor and a fourth component of the second multi-components tensor, wherein the third component corresponds to the fourth component [Claim 10].
15. The method of claim 14, wherein applying the scaling factor to the decoupled components of the fourth multi-components tensor comprises: determining a first component-based scaling factor and a second component-based scaling factor from a first scaling factor and a second scaling factor; applying the first component-based scaling factor to a fifth component of the fourth multi-components tensor, wherein the fifth component corresponds to the first component and the second component; and applying the second component-based scaling factor to a sixth component of the fourth multi-components tensor, wherein the sixth component corresponds to the third component and the fourth component [Claim 12].
9. With respect to claim 16, the mapping is shown as below:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by a processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: decoupling a first multi-components tensor and a second multi-components tensor, the first multi-components tensor corresponding to a first set of measurements receivable at a first antenna from a third antenna in a wellbore, the second multi-components tensor corresponding to a second set of measurements receivable at a second antenna from the third antenna [Claim 1, lines 15-18, 30-35]; determining, using the decoupled first multi-components tensor and the second multi-components tensor, a scaling factor [Claim 1, lines 36-38]; applying the scaling factor to: a raw measurement of the first antenna or the second antenna to generate and decouple a third multi-components tensor for controlling a wellbore operation; or decoupled components of a fourth multi-components tensor for controlling the wellbore operation [Claim 1, lines 39-53].
8. Claims 17-20 are mapped as follow:
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein: the operations further comprise receiving the first set of measurements and the second set of measurements, wherein the first set of measurements are associated with a first set of azimuth angles of the first antenna with respect to a longitudinal axis of a wellbore tool, wherein the second set of measurements are associated with a second set of azimuth angles of the second antenna with respect to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are positionable on the wellbore tool that is positioned in air; the first set of azimuth angles and the second set of azimuth angles are different; and the operation of determining the scaling factor comprises determining the scaling factor based on the first set of azimuth angles associated with the first antenna and the second set of azimuth angles associated with the second antenna [Claims 15-16].
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the first antenna is a first electromagnetic antenna and the second antenna is a second electromagnetic antenna, and wherein the first electromagnetic antenna and the second electromagnetic antenna are positionable on a wellbore tool that is positioned in the wellbore for making the raw measurement [Claim 15, lines 12-18].
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the first antenna is a first electromagnetic antenna and the second antenna is a second electromagnetic antenna, and wherein the fourth multi-components tensor corresponds to first raw measurements from the first electromagnetic antenna and to second raw measurements from the second electromagnetic antenna [Claims 15, 17].
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the operation of determining the scaling factor comprises determining an average scaling factor by averaging a first scaling factor and a second scaling factor, wherein the operation of applying the scaling factor includes applying the averaged scaling factor to the raw measurement, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first scaling factor using a first component of the first multi-components tensor and a second component of the second multi-components tensor, wherein the first component corresponds to the second component; and determining the second scaling factor using a third component of the first multi-components tensor and a fourth component of the second multi-components tensor, wherein the third component corresponds to the fourth component [Claims 16-17].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
11. Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “decoupling a first multi-components tensor and a second multi-components tensor, the first multi-components tensor corresponding to a first set of measurements receivable at a first antenna from a third antenna in a wellbore, the second multi-components tensor corresponding to a second set of measurements receivable at a second antenna from the third antenna; determining, using the decoupled first multi-components tensor and the second multi-components tensor, a scaling factor; applying the scaling factor to: a raw measurement of the first antenna or the second antenna to generate and decouple a third multi-components tensor for controlling a wellbore operation; or decoupled components of a fourth multi-components tensor for controlling the wellbore operation” which are mathematical-calculations/mental steps that is carried out using a generic processor/computer. The terms “decoupling, determining, applying” represents mathematical expression to perform an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps are performing data gathering and data processing which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Adding the words “apply it” or adding insignificant extra-solution activity does not mean the limitations are integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because using a processor to carry out steps is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art. See prior arts listed here showing using a generic processor or a computer to carry out abstract idea steps: Wu et al. (US 2018/0239048), Figures 1-4, Abstract, P(0023); Zhong et al. (US 10,627,536), Figures 1-12, Abstract, P(79).
Also, the “antennas” are mentioned in the claim in the form of an expression instead of a physical arrangement.
12. Claims 2-8 are also rejected as they further limit claim 1.
13. Regarding claim 9, the claim(s) recite(s) “decoupling a first multi-components tensor and a second multi-components tensor, the first multi-components tensor corresponding to a first set of measurements received at a first antenna from a third antenna in a wellbore, the second multi-components tensor corresponding to a second set of measurements received at a second antenna from the third antenna; determining, using the decoupled first multi-components tensor and the second multi-components tensor, a scaling factor; applying the scaling factor to: a raw measurement of the first antenna or the second antenna to generate and decouple a third multi-components tensor for controlling a wellbore operation; or decoupled components of a fourth multi-components tensor for controlling the wellbore operation” which are mathematical-calculations/mental steps that is carried out using a generic processor/computer. The terms “decoupling, determining, applying” represents mathematical expression to perform an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps are performing data gathering and data processing which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Adding the words “apply it” or adding insignificant extra-solution activity does not mean the limitations are integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because using a processor to carry out steps is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art. See prior arts listed here showing using a generic processor or a computer to carry out abstract idea steps: Wu et al. (US 2018/0239048), Figures 1-4, Abstract, P(0023); Zhong et al. (US 10,627,536), Figures 1-12, Abstract, P(79).
Also, the “antennas” are mentioned in the claim in the form of an expression instead of a physical arrangement.
14. Claims 10-15 are also rejected as they further limit claim 9.
15. Regarding claim 16, the claim(s) recite(s) “decoupling a first multi-components tensor and a second multi-components tensor, the first multi-components tensor corresponding to a first set of measurements receivable at a first antenna from a third antenna in a wellbore, the second multi-components tensor corresponding to a second set of measurements receivable at a second antenna from the third antenna; determining, using the decoupled first multi-components tensor and the second multi-components tensor, a scaling factor; applying the scaling factor to: a raw measurement of the first antenna or the second antenna to generate and decouple a third multi-components tensor for controlling a wellbore operation; or decoupled components of a fourth multi-components tensor for controlling the wellbore operation” which are mathematical-calculations/mental steps that is carried out using a generic processor/computer. The terms “decoupling, determining, applying” represents mathematical expression to perform an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps are performing data gathering and data processing which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Adding the words “apply it” or adding insignificant extra-solution activity does not mean the limitations are integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because using a processor to carry out steps is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art. See prior arts listed here showing using a generic processor or a computer to carry out abstract idea steps: Wu et al. (US 2018/0239048), Figures 1-4, Abstract, P(0023); Zhong et al. (US 10,627,536), Figures 1-12, Abstract, P(79).
Also, the “antennas” are mentioned in the claim in the form of an expression instead of a physical arrangement.
16. Claims 17-20 are also rejected as they further limit claim 16.
Note: no prior art rejection is made at the moment.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 2015/0309201), Figures 1-8, Abstract teaches deep resistivity measurements using multi-component antennas. Prior art shows downhole tool to carry out measurements using antennas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858