DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 8 and 16 - 20 have been presented for examination. Claims 9 – 15 are cancelled. Claims 1 – 8 and 16 – 20 are currently amended.
This office action is in response to submission of the amendments on 12/23/2025.
Response to Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The refined seismic model determined during each iteration is used to better locate a hydrocarbon reservoir and adjust drilling operations of the drilling system prior to drilling the next portion of the well bore using the drilling system.
This iterative process of drilling and seismic inversion is thus a modeling method performed while drilling. Accordingly, amended independent claims 1 and 16 recite an improvement in the technical field of drilling operations. Amended independent claims 1 and 16 thus integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two of the SME test.” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the claimed invention amounts to an improved drilling operation. Looking to the instant claims, they explicitly recite for each iteration “drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore … acquiring … a second portion of the observed seismic dataset … determining the refined seismic model … locating a hydrocarbon reservoir using the refined seismic model, and adjusting drilling operations of the drilling system based on the located hydrocarbon reservoir”. Specifically, each iteration merely drills “a portion of a wellbore”, and acquires “a second portion of the observed seismic dataset”, for the end result of “adjusting drilling operations of the drilling system”. Looking at each iteration as a whole, and as an ordered combination with other iterations, they do not amount to the argued “prior to drilling the next portion of the well bore” since the each iteration merely recites drilling “a portion”, and each well data acquired while drilling is merely for a “second portion” of the observer seismic dataset having antecedent basis to the previously recited “obtaining a first portion of an observed seismic dataset“. Further, the claim does not recite or require any further improvement after each iteration (either in the refined seismic model or in the drilling operations).
Looking to the disclosure, there is not explicitly disclosed any iterative improvement upon drilling different portions of a wellbore. In contrast, there is disclosed performing iterative refinements only to the seismic model (see Paragraph 48 “Flowchart (400) depicts an iterative or recursive process. Furthermore, flowchart (400) shows two coupled iterative loops”, and Paragraph 84 “If convergence has occurred the process may terminate. However, is convergence has not occurred, the process may iterate recursively. For example, the refined seismic model may become a new current seismic model in Step (504) and the seismic wavelet may be updated.”). Therefore, the instant claims weigh against an improved drilling system and/or improved drilling operations since the improvement appears to be in the refined model itself which is then generically applied to the drilling operations.
Examiner further notes that the adjusted drilling operations are merely “based on the located hydrocarbon reservoir”. The recitation of an interceding “locating a hydrocarbon reservoir using the refined seismic model” covers an experienced drilling operator relying on the results of the refined seismic model in a cursory manner to perform any desired adjustments to the drilling operations. Therefore, the “adjusting drilling operations” does not appear to be intimately linked to the refined seismic model.
Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s amendments overcome the prior art rejection. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “seismic acquisition system” and “drilling system” and “logging-while-drilling system” in claim 16; and “wellbore planning system” in claim 17 since there are no means recited to perform said acquisition or drilling or logging or wellbore planning.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Looking to the specification, the “seismic acquisition system” is interpreted as covered by seismic receivers (see the instant application Paragraph 45 “When a seismic dataset is acquired by activating physical seismic sources and recording the actual resulting vibrations of the Earth using physical seismic receivers, the seismic dataset may be termed an "observed seismic dataset" and the component seismic traces "observed seismic traces”). The ”drilling system” is interpreted covering various components used for drilling (see the instant application Paragraph 90 “As shown in FIG. 6A, a drilling system (600) may include …”). The “logging-while-drilling system” is interpreted as covering various types of sensor that used during drilling operations (see the instant application Paragraph 92 “For example, the sensors (621) may include acoustic sensors, such as accelerometers, measurement microphones, contact microphones, and hydrophones … If such well data is acquired during drilling operations (i.e., logging-while-drilling), then the information may be used …”). The “wellbore planning system” is interpreted as covering generic computer hardware and software components (see the instant application Paragraph 89 “The wellbore planning system may comprise one or more computer processors in communication with computer memory containing the seismic and geomechnical models, information relating to drilling hazards, and the constraints imposed by the limitations of the drillstring and the drilling system. The wellbore planning system may further include dedicated software to determine the planned wellbore path and associated drilling parameters, such as the planned wellbore diameter, the location of planned changes of the wellbore diameter, the planned depths at which casing will be inserted to support the wellbore and to prevent formation fluids entering the wellbore, and the mud weights (densities) and types that may be used during drilling the wellbore”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 8 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, it recites “iteratively: drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore through the subterranean region, acquiring, while drilling, well data for the portion of the well bore, wherein the well data comprises a second portion of the observed seismic dataset, inputting … predicting … determining … determining … determining ... determining … determining … locating … adjusting”. As argued by Applicant argues that the iteratively performed steps amount to “adjust drilling operations of the drilling system prior to drilling the next portion of the well bore using the drilling system”. Looking to the disclosure, there is not explicitly disclosed any iterative improvement upon drilling different portions of a wellbore. In contrast, there is disclosed performing iterative refinements only to the seismic model (see Paragraph 48 “Flowchart (400) depicts an iterative or recursive process. Furthermore, flowchart (400) shows two coupled iterative loops”, and Paragraph 84 “If convergence has occurred the process may terminate. However, is convergence has not occurred, the process may iterate recursively. For example, the refined seismic model may become a new current seismic model in Step (504) and the seismic wavelet may be updated.”). Therefore, Applicant does not appear to have had possession of the recited ”drilling” and “acquiring” and “inputting” and “predicting” and “determining” and “determining” and “determining” and “determining” and “determining” and “locating” and “adjusting”, all performed in the context of iterations.
With regard to claim 16, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1, and further recites iteratively “receive the observed seismic database” and “receive a current seismic model of the subterranean region”. Similar arguments may be applied to claim 16, and it fails to comply with the written description requirement for substantially the same reasons.
With regard to claim 2 – 8 and 17 – 20, they are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting additional limitations which overcome the deficiency.
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 – 8 and 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for determining a refined seismic model of a subterranean region, comprising: predicting a predicted seismic model from the trained ML network in response to the observed seismic dataset; determining a data penalty function based on a difference between the observed seismic dataset and the simulated seismic dataset and a data covariance matrix; determining a model penalty function based on a difference between the current seismic model and the predicted seismic model; determining a composite penalty function based on a weighted sum of the data penalty function and the model penalty function; and determining the refined seismic model based on finding an extremum of the composite penalty function; locating a hydrocarbon reservoir using the refined seismic model. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that in part, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “predicting” and “locating” require no more than judgements and evaluations using a previously trained model. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that in part, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “difference between” and “weighted sum” and “finding an extremum” explicitly recite mathematical operations in words. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: obtaining a first portion of an observed seismic dataset from the subterranean region; obtaining a current seismic model of the subterranean region; that one or more steps are performed iteratively; drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore through the subterranean region, acquiring, while drilling, well data for the portion of the well bore, wherein the well data comprises a second portion of the observed seismic dataset, inputting, the observed seismic dataset into a trained machine learning (ML) network; determining, using a forward modeling method and a seismic wavelet, a simulated seismic dataset from the current seismic model. The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it recites at a high-level of generality gathering a dataset/model (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). adjusting drilling operations of the drilling system based on the located hydrocarbon reservoir. The “obtaining” and “acquiring, while drilling” and “inputting” amount to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality how the data is obtained. The “iteratively” does not amount to a practical application at least since the improvement appears to be in the refined seismic model, and the adjustment of the drilling operations at each iteration are not intimately linked with refined seismic model being effectuated in a generic manner (see Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101). The “drilling, using a drilling system” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it generically uses the results of the refined seismic model for a previous iteration. The “determining” recites the idea of an outcome since it covers determining a dataset using any type of forward modelling from specific inputs (i.e., seismic model, seismic wavelet). The “adjusting” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “computer processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “obtaining” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “determining” covers well-known seismic forward modelling to generate seismic data waves (see Ahmed, I. (US 2018/0156931) Paragraph 46 “Returning to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2A, the process 100 begins by forward modeling (at 110) on the velocity model 216 of the subterranean region to generate a set of low frequency seismic data 218 … The general concept of two-way forward modeling on a velocity model is, in itself, well known to the art.”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “training” and “determining” require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 8 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 2 determining an updated data penalty function based on a difference between the observed seismic dataset and the updated simulated seismic dataset and an updated data covariance matrix; determining an updated model penalty function based on a difference between the refined seismic model and the predicted seismic model; determining an updated composite penalty function based on a weighted sum of the updated data penalty function and the updated model penalty function; and determining an updated seismic model based on finding an updated extremum of the updated composite penalty function; Claim 3 planning a wellbore path to intersect the hydrocarbon reservoir; Claim 4 forming a composite training penalty function comprising: a model training penalty function measuring a difference between a seismic training model and a predicted seismic training model, predicted by the ML network from a corresponding seismic training dataset, and a data training penalty function based on a ML Jacobian operator; and training the ML network based on finding an extremum of the composite training penalty function; Claim 6 wherein training the ML network further comprises: forming a composite training penalty function comprising: a model penalty function measuring the difference between each seismic training model and a predicted seismic training model, predicted by the ML network from the corresponding seismic training dataset, and a data penalty function based, at least in part, on a deterministic Jacobian operator; and training the ML network based, at least in part, on finding an extremum of the composite training penalty function; Claim 7 wherein the extremum of the composite penalty function comprises a minimum. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that in part, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “difference between” and “weighted sum” and “finding an updated extremum” and “extremum of the composite penalty function comprises a minimum” explicitly recite mathematical operations in words. The “Jacobian operator” recites a specific type of mathematical operator. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that in part, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “planning” require(s) no more than judgements and evaluations based on modeling results. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 2 determining using the forward modeling method and a refined seismic wavelet, an updated simulated seismic dataset from the refined seismic model and a refined seismic wavelet using the forward modeling method; Claim 3 that the “planning” is using a wellbore planning system; Claim 4 training the ML network comprising; Claim 5 training the ML network comprising; augmenting the plurality of seismic training models and the corresponding seismic training datasets with the current seismic model and the simulated seismic dataset for the current seismic model; and retraining the trained ML network based, at least in part, on the augmented plurality of seismic training models and the corresponding seismic training datasets; Claim 6 training the ML network comprising; Claim 8 wherein the forward modelling method comprises a physics-based forward modelling method. The “determining” and “forward modelling method” recites the idea of an outcome since it covers determining a dataset using any type of forward modelling from specific inputs (i.e., seismic model, seismic wavelet), including being based on physics which does not recite how the modeling is performed. The “using a wellbore planning system” recites the idea of an outcome since it requires no more than ordinary equipment used in its ordinary capacity. The “training” amounts to reciting the idea of an outcome since it recites at a high-level of generality producing another model, which is then used as an input to the “predicting” of the abstract idea. Specifically, the “training” does not recite details of the training beyond what the training is based on, and does not explicitly recite what the model outputs beyond being a “trained ML network”. Looking to the disclosure, the algorithm used to train the ML network is not explicitly disclosed, beyond being based on backpropagation and gradient descent algorithms (see the instant application Paragraph 38 “Training may be defined as the process of determining the values of the weights within each array of weights and the values of each bias term such that the neural network (200) makes accurate predictions. Training may be performed iteratively, where each iteration is referred to as an "epoch", using training data and backpropagation.”). The “augmenting” amounts to insignificant data-gathering since it merely increases training data for a later recited training step. The “retraining” amounts to reciting the idea of an outcome since it recites at a high-level of generality producing another model, which is then used as an input to the “predicting” of the abstract idea, as discussed previously. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “determining” and “forward modeling comprises” covers well-known seismic forward modelling to generate seismic data waves (see Ahmed, I. (US 2018/0156931) Paragraph 46 “Returning to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2A, the process 100 begins by forward modeling (at 110) on the velocity model 216 of the subterranean region to generate a set of low frequency seismic data 218 … The general concept of two-way forward modeling on a velocity model is, in itself, well known to the art.”). The “using a wellbore planning system” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment used in its ordinary capacity. The “training” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it covers using backpropagation and any desired gradient descent algorithm to train the model which are well-known (see Amari Abstract “The backpropagation learning method has opened a way to wide applications of neural network research. It is a type of the stochastic descent method known in the sixties. The present paper reviews the wide applicability of the stochastic gradient descent method to various types of models and loss functions.”). The “augmenting” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “determining” and “augmenting” and “retraining” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 16 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system, configured to perform substantially the identical steps as claim 1. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that in part, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that in part, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1 and above.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims substantially the identical additional elements as claim 1, and further claims: a seismic data acquisition system; a drilling system, and a logging-while-drilling system, a computer system; receive the observed seismic dataset, receive a current seismic model of the subterranean region. The various “system” require no more than generic equipment and therefore amount to reciting the words “apply it”. The “require” covers insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality how the data is gathering. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1, and above.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the various “system” amount to reciting the words “apply it”. The “receive” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as in claim 1, and above.
Dependent claim 17 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recites: plan a wellbore path to intersect the hydrocarbon reservoir. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that in part, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “plan” requires no more than judgement and evaluations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 17 a wellbore planning system configured to; The “wellbore planning system” recites the idea of an outcome since it requires no more than ordinary equipment used in its ordinary capacity. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the clam(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “drilling system to drill” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment used in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 18 – 20 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Claims 18 – 20 may be compared to claims 4, 6 and 5, respectively. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea for the same reasons.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 18 – 20 may be compared to claims 4, 6 and 5, respectively. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons.
At Step 2B the claims do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 18 – 20 may be compared to claims 4, 6 and 5, respectively. For at least the same reasons, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over the prior art, subject to overcoming the 101 and 112(a) rejection(s):
The claim 1 (and similarly claim 16, and by incorporation claims 2 – 8 and 17 – 20) method for determining a refined seismic model of a subterranean region, the method comprising: “iteratively: drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore through the subterranean region, acquiring, while drilling, well data for the portion of the well bore, wherein the well data comprises a second portion of the observed seismic dataset, inputting the observed seismic dataset into a trained machine learning (ML) network, predicting a predicted seismic model from the trained ML network in response to the observed seismic dataset, determining, using a forward modeling method and a seismic wavelet, a simulated seismic dataset from the current seismic model; determining a data penalty function based on a difference between the observed seismic dataset and the simulated seismic dataset and a data covariance matrix, wherein the data covariance matrix comprises a data-weighting matrix, determining, a model penalty function based on a difference between the current seismic model and the predicted seismic model, determining a composite penalty function based on a weighted sum of the data penalty function and the model penalty function, determining, the refined seismic model based on finding an extremum of the composite penalty function, locating a hydrocarbon reservoir using the refined seismic model, and adjusting drilling operations of the drilling system based on the located hydrocarbon reservoir”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights