DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 are currently presented for examination. Claims 5, 10 and 15 are currently indicated as cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
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.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 6-9 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 11-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 6 and 11 recite the abstract idea of modeling parameters in a 3D space, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "
PNG
media_image1.png
86
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of performing calculations for a set of variables based on other variables, or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a set of variables based on other variables (Spec [0034]-[0039]). Additionally, the limitation of “
PNG
media_image2.png
104
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of performing calculations for a set of variables within a boundary (Spec [0034]-[0039]). Additionally, the limitation of “
PNG
media_image3.png
245
1046
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of performing calculations to test variables to create a subset (Spec [0031], [0040]). Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of mathematical concepts or alternatively a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9 and 12-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 4, 9 and 14 the additional element of “a random number generator”, as well as “one or more processors”, “memory”, in claims 6 and 11, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 11, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “
PNG
media_image4.png
111
1052
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”, in claims 1, 6 and 11, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). In Claims 4, 9 and 14, the limitation of “a random number generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional limitation of “converting the detectable subset of model realizations into images used for hydrocarbon reservoir characterization of a subsurface formation” in claims 1, 6 and 11, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere post solution outputting necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to printing or downloading generated menus, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9 and 12-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 6 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 4, 9 and 14 the additional element of “a random number generator”, as well as “one or more processors”, “memory”, in claims 6 and 11, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 11, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “
PNG
media_image5.png
50
517
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”, in claims 1, 6 and 11, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). In Claims 4, 9 and 14, the limitation of “a random number generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional limitation of “converting the detectable subset of model realizations into images used for hydrocarbon reservoir characterization of a subsurface formation” in claims 1, 6 and 11, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere post solution outputting necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to printing or downloading generated menus, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 7 and 12 are directed to further converting the subset, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3, 8 and 13 are directed to further defining the bounds, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 9 and 14 are directed to further defining the bounds and generating fluctuations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to the claims. See allowability section of Non-Final Rejection dated 5/29/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Canning et al. “Automatic Anisotropic Velocity Analysis for Full Azimuth Gathers using AVAZ”: Also teaches the use of Anisotropic Velocity analysist to show a 3D flat migrated gathers image.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights