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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended.
Claims 8 and 16 are canceled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-21 are pending.
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, 9-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1, 9 and 17 belongs to a statutory category of a method, device and device respectively.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim(s) 1 and similarly 9 and 17 recite(s) “a model of a subterranean domain for seismic processing”, “obtaining an initial model of the subterranean domain representing one or more characteristics of the subterranean domain; simulating synthetic seismic data using the initial model of the subterranean domain; generating a first time-space panel including the measured seismic data sorted along a first spatial direction with respect to time; and generating a second time- space panel including the synthetic seismic data sorted along a second spatial direction with respect to time; applying a first moving window to the first time-space panel and a second moving window to the second time-space panel, the second moving window having a same size as the first moving window; implementing a least-squares-based objective function to determine a misfit in time and space at regions where there is at least one of a time shift or a space shift between the measured seismic data in the first moving window and the synthetic seismic data in the second moving window, the least-squares-based objective function being performed on at least one of a measured time-shift or a measured space-shift between the first moving window and the second moving window to enable processing in regions where similar events do not exist in both the measured seismic data and the synthetic seismic data, wherein the least-squares-based objective function comprises a weighted combination term including: a template-matching component based on the measured time-shift and the measured space-shift weighted by a quality factor derived from cross-correlation between the measured seismic data in the first moving window and the synthetic seismic data in the second moving window, and a least-squares misfit component weighted by a factor based on an inverse of the quality factor, the least-squares misfit component being applied to regions where the cross-correlation between the measured seismic data and the synthetic seismic data falls below a threshold; wherein, when there is a high degree of similarity between the measured seismic data and the synthetic seismic data, the misfit is based on the measured time-shift and space-shift, and in places with lower similarity, which are observed as missing events in the synthetic seismic data, the least-squares misfit component is used to derive an update of the model of the subterranean domain to push to extend the model of the subterranean domain in depth; iteratively updating the model of the subterranean domain by iteratively updating a parameter of the model of the subterranean domain based on a gradient of the least-squares-based objective function to reduce the misfit to mitigate cycle-skipping and extend updates of the model of the subterranean domain in depth;” is considered to be directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, for example see applicant’s specification Par. 68-73.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “receiving measured seismic data collected by recording seismic waves that propagate through a subterranean domain;” and “generating, based on the iteratively updated model of the subterranean domain, a visualization of the of the subterranean domain on a display device as a seismic image that provides a more accurate visualization of the subterranean domain than that of the initial model of the subterranean domain to facilitate at least one of: oilfield exploration, drill planning, or drilling” are considered to be data gathering and outputting steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements in claim 9 and 17 of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations” and “a computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system including one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations” are considered to be generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving measured seismic data collected by recording seismic waves that propagate through a subterranean domain;” and “generating, based on the iteratively updated model of the subterranean domain, a visualization of the of the subterranean domain on a display device as a seismic image that provides a more accurate visualization of the subterranean domain than that of the initial model of the subterranean domain to facilitate at least one of: oilfield exploration, drill planning, or drilling” are considered to be merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as well-understood, routine, conventional activities per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i), MPEP 2106.05(d)(3) “generic computer components that perform merely generic computer functions” and MPEP2106.05(f)(1) see “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data”. The additional elements in claim 9 and 17 of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations” and “a computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory system including one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations” are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activities per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 2-7, 10-15, and 18-20 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas above without adding any elements considered to be integrated into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 is not considered to be integrated into a practical application because “using the iteratively updated model of the subterranean domain to perform a drilling operation comprising at least one of: placing a well or a following well trajectory” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further it does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “using the iteratively updated model of the subterranean domain to perform a drilling operation comprising at least one of: placing a well or a following well trajectory” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h), merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 11-20, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, regarding improving the model and the cited mathematical components and calculations, per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Thus, the claims are not considered to be an improvement. In addition, updating a “physical parameter” amount to updating data. The claims are considered as a whole and the rejection breaks down why the individual elements alone and/or in combination do not amount to a particle application or significantly more than the abstract idea and the cited elements are considered to be data gathering as cited per the MPEP. Regarding Mercer as previously stated examiner does not believe those cases are analogues to the current claims, further, the prior art of record has been provided, example i and 3 are explicitly cited and previous 103 rejections cite the elements specifically. Further MPEP 2106.05(d) explicitly recognizes memories and processors as common routine and well known. Again, per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Thus, the claims are not considered to be an improvement. Regarding new claim 21, Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200158898 A1, Analogue Facilitated Seismic Data Interpretation System; US 5638338 A, Seismic Processing Apparatus And Method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights