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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites: “The move out surface of claim 3” in the pre-amble. It is understood that Applicant wanted to say “The method of claim 3, wherein the move out surface function…”. In order to prevent any 112 (b) issues, appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 10 are directed to the abstract idea of discretizing the seismic data set into a plurality of NLBF sub-problems; solving a subset of the NLBF sub-problems with a non-linear optimizer creating final NLBF tuples; periodically training a machine-learned model with a subset of the NLBF sub-problems and final NLBF tuples data; obtaining intermediate NLBF tuple predictions from the trained machine-learned model; using the intermediate NLBF tuple predictions as initial values in the non-linear optimizer to create final NLBF tuples or accepting the intermediate NLBF tuple predictions obtained directly from the trained machine-learned model as final NLBF tuples. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts (i.e. algorithm, see para. 0044). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are receiving a seismic data set; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and storing the final NLBF tuples, which is considered an extra solution activity (i.e. storing data). Additional elements such as a non-transitory computer readable medium and a computer processor, are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to create final NLBF tuples. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “using the intermediate NLBF tuple predictions as initial values in the non-linear optimizer to create final NLBF tuples or accepting the intermediate NLBF tuple predictions obtained directly from the trained machine-learned model as final NLBF tuples”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done with the created final NLBF tuples.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. storing data, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 20 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 can serve to overcome the 101 rejection because it transforms the abstract idea into a practical application by planning and drilling the wellbore based on the seismic image. Therefore, claims 2 and 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857