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 .
Drawings
As discussed in a previous action, the drawings filed on 09/15/22 are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The applicant’s amendments of 12/03/25 have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection but have also deleted the limitations that helped overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of 04/28/25.
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, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process. Independent claim 11 is directed to a system, which is a machine. All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 11. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
isolating a first seismic event with a tapered windowing function to identify a plurality of traces that measure the first seismic event (A tapered windowing function is a mathematical calculation.)
the tapered windowing function comprising one of a simple box car, Tukey window, Hanning window, Hamming window, and a Raised Cosine window (These are all mathematical functions that are defined by specific mathematical calculations and relationships.)
computing a spectral ratio from a pair of the plurality of traces in the well log (computing a spectral ratio is a mathematical calculation)
computing a velocity for each of the plurality of traces in the well log (computing a velocity is a mathematical calculation.)
identifying an analytic correction for a gauge of the DAS system and the velocity for computed spectral ratio in the well log (Paragraph 0049 of the applicant’s specification states, “an analytic correction is computed for the gauge …” This is a mathematical calculation.)
applying the analytic correction to the computed spectral ratio to form a corrected spectral ratio, wherein the analytic correction is based at least in part on an apparent velocity or a gauge length (Applying the analytic correction to the computed spectral ratio is a mathematical calculation.)
identifying a slope of the corrected computed spectral ratio for at least a part of the well log (Paragraph 0051 of the applicant’s specification cites a particular equation for identifying slope. It is a mathematical calculation.)
converting the slope to a Q value (Paragraph 0051 of the applicant’s specification states, “the slope of the straight line is converted to the value of Q between the traces. This operation may be performed utilizing Equation 10 …” This limitation is therefore directed to a specific equation.)
identifying one or more properties of the subterranean formation from the Q value to form a well log (This limitation represents a mental process. Identifying formation properties based on a output value is an evaluation that can be performed by the human mind.)
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations that also recite abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12-17, and 20 further recite mathematical concepts.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
measuring one or more seismic events with a distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) system to form a well log, wherein the DAS system utilizes a fiber optic cable configured to transport light to and from the surface, wherein the light is altered by the one or more seismic events and the DAS system forms the well log based at least in part on the altered light (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The core of the claimed invention is directed to abstract mathematical data processing. Acquiring the data necessary to perform the abstract mathematical data processing is insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the limitation also serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). In this case, the particular technological environment or field of use is using DAS in the well logging field.)
Claim 9
further comprising disposing the DAS system into a wellbore (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
Claim 11
a fiber optic cable disposed in a wellbore (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The core of claimed invention is directed to the mathematical data processing of wellbore data, not the generic structure used to gather and process data. Furthermore, it should be noted that the mere gathering of data for abstract data processing is considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
an interrogator connected to the fiber optic cable and wherein the interrogator includes a gauge (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The core of claimed invention is directed to the mathematical data processing of wellbore data, not the generic structure used to gather and process data. Furthermore, it should be noted that the mere gathering of data for abstract data processing is considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
an information handling system connected to the interrogator (This limitation is directed to a type of computer. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)))
form a well log from one or more traces of one or more seismic events taken along the fiber optic cable (This limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Claim 19
wherein each of the one or more traces are spaced one meter or more apart on the fiber optic cable (This limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The spacing of the traces affects the data to be processed, but does not fundamentally change the abstract data processing calculations.)
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving data, processing data, and outputting a result based on the processed data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Please note the following references that specifically demonstrate that utilizing a fiber optic cable with disposed in a wellbore, with an interrogator connected to the fiber optic cable, and wherein the interrogator includes a gauge is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Erdimer et al (US PgPub 20180329099) discloses creating 3C distributed acoustic sensing data (see paragraphs 0044, 0055-0056)
Ellmauthaler et al (WO 2019005050 A1) discloses angular response compensation for DAS VSP (see paragraphs 0029, 0035, 0037)
Ellmauthaler et al (US PgPub 20170235006) discloses noise removal for distributed acoustic sensing data (see paragraphs 0025, 0036, 0038, 0040, 0044-0046)
Wu et al (US PgPub 20190331819) discloses a gauge length effect and gauge length conversion (see abstract and paragraphs 0002, 0030, 0034)
Wilson et al (US PgPub 20200271811) discloses real-time processing and control of DAS VSP surveys (see paragraphs 0026, 0037)
Examiner’s Note - Allowable Subject Matter
The below limitations, when considered as a whole, are distinguished from the prior art, in that they were not found, taught, disclosed, or suggested in the prior art. Please note that the claims cannot be allowed until the above 35 USC § 101 rejection is overcome.
Claim 1
isolating a first seismic event with a tapered windowing function to identify a plurality of traces that measure the first seismic event, the tapered windowing function comprising one of a simple box car, Tukey window, Hanning window, Hamming window, and a Raised Cosine window
computing a spectral ratio from a pair of the plurality of traces in the well log
computing a velocity for each of the plurality of traces in the well log
identifying an analytic correction for a gauge of the DAS system and the velocity for the computed spectral ratio in the well log
applying the analytic correction to the computed spectral ratio to form a corrected spectral ratio, wherein the analytic correction is based at least in part on an apparent velocity or a gauge length
identifying a slope of the corrected computed spectral ratio for at least a part of the well log
converting the slope to a Q value
identifying one or more properties of the subterranean formation from the Q value to form a well log
Claim 11
isolate a first seismic event with a tapered windowing function to identify a plurality of traces that measure the first seismic event, the tapered windowing function comprising one of a simple box car, Tukey window, Hanning window, Hamming window, and a Raised Cosine window
compute a spectral ratio from a pair of the plurality of traces in the well log
identify a velocity for each of the plurality of traces in the well log
identify an analytic correction for the gauge and the velocity for the computed spectral ratio in the well log
apply the analytic correction to the computed spectral ratio to form a corrected spectral ratio, wherein the analytic correction is based at least in part on an apparent velocity or a gauge length
identify a slope of the corrected computed spectral ratio for at least part of the well log
convert the slope to a Q value
identify one or more formation properties in the subterranean formation from the Q value to form a well log:
While art was found that could relate to individual limitations, when applied in a vacuum, the examiner could not find art that found, taught, disclosed, or suggested the claimed limitations, as a whole. The examiner also could not find proper motivation to combine multiple references to arrive at a proper obviousness rejection.
The examiner was particularly persuaded by the following argument in the applicant’s 09/04/25 response:
PNG
media_image1.png
271
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One thing that the examiner took note of in this argument was that the applicant gave weight to the order of the claimed steps. The examiner considered how much weight should be given to the order of the claims. The examiner also considered that the claimed limitations were presented in the applicant’s original specification as a cohesive workflow (paragraph 0039 of the applicant’s original specification stated, “The method is described as workflow 400 in Figure 4.” (emphasis mine).
Although art was found that was considered relevant to individual steps in the claimed limitation, the examiner determined that disparate teachings could not be combined in a piecemeal fashion to arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis et al (US PgPub 20120278043) discloses fibre optic distributed sensing.
Lewis et al (US PgPub 20140153364) discloses seismic geophysical surveying.
Noui-Mehidi et al (US PgPub 20140198617) discloses a method and apparatus for in-well wireless control using infrasound sources.
Preston et al (US PgPub 20160191163) discloses real-time fiber optic interferometry controller.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 04/19/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights