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 Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 4/15/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 22 pending claims.
Claims 1, 24, 42-43, and 45-46 have been amended.
Claims 23, 27-28, and 44 have been cancelled.
Claims 48-50 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments filed 4/15/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1-2, 10, 17, 23-24, 27-28, 31-35, 37, 39, and 40-43 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 1 has been amended, and incorporated certain aspects of allowable claim 44, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1-2, 10, 17, 23-24, 27-28, 31-35, 37, 39, and 40-43 have been withdrawn.
Newly added claims 48-50 depend from claim 1, and therefore, the claims are not subject to the 103 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/15/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-2, 10, 17, 23-24, 27-28, 31-35, 37, and 39-47 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 8 of the remark filed on 4/15/2025 that “Claims 1-2,10,17, 23-24, 27-28, 31-35, 37, and 39-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being abstract idea without significantly more. Amended claim 1 recites in part: … As such, Applicant incorporates the limitation of performing the hydrocarbon extraction or hydrocarbon production using the one or more images generated. Controlling the hydrocarbon extraction or the hydrocarbon production may manifest in one or more ways, such as drilling at least one well or controlling operation of the at least one well (see claim 48) or controlling operation of at least one well, such as controlling well injection rates or well extraction rates (see claims 49-50). In this regard, Applicant respectfully contends that the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “automatically extracting a structured representation from the subsurface data”;
“identifying geologic and fluid objects in the subsurface data, wherein each object corresponds to a node of the structured representation”; “identifying relationships among the identified geologic and fluid objects, wherein each relationship corresponds to an edge of the structured representation”, “automatically analyzing the structured representation”; and “automatically generating, using the analysis of the structured representation, one or more images for output on a display, the one or more images comprising the one or more seismic images with respective nodes anchored at respective pixel locations for the respective objects and the spatial relationships and the one or both of the geological or the petrological relationships superimposed thereon so that the one or more seismic images are on the subsurface data and being generated to highlight at least one aspect of the structured representation representing the identified geologic and the fluid objects and the relationships among the identified geologic and the fluid objects” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of claim 1-2, 10, 17, 23-24, 27-28, 31-35, 37, and 39-47 are proper.
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 1-2, 10, 17, 24, 31-35, 37, 39-43, and 45-50 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method comprising:
accessing subsurface data for a subsurface region, wherein the subsurface data comprises one or more seismic images;
automatically extracting a structured representation from the subsurface data by:
identifying geologic and fluid objects in the subsurface data, wherein each object corresponds to a node of the structured representation; and
identifying relationships among the identified geologic and fluid objects, wherein each relationship corresponds to an edge of the structured representation, wherein the relationships comprise: (i) spatial relationships including positional descriptors; and (ii) one or both of geological or petrological relationships;
automatically analyzing the structured representation;
automatically generating, using the analysis of the structured representation, one or more images for output on a display, the one or more images comprising the one or more seismic images with respective nodes anchored at respective pixel locations for the respective objects and the spatial relationships and the one or both of the geological or the petrological relationships superimposed thereon so that the one or more seismic images are on the subsurface data and being generated to highlight at least one aspect of the structured representation representing the identified geologic and the fluid objects and the relationships among the identified geologic and the fluid objects; and
controlling hydrocarbon extraction or hydrocarbon production using the one or more images.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional element that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional element:
accessing subsurface data for a subsurface region, wherein the subsurface data comprises one or more seismic images; wherein the relationships comprise: (i) spatial relationships including positional descriptors; and (ii) one or both of geological or petrological relationships; and controlling hydrocarbon extraction or hydrocarbon production using the one or more images.
The additional element “accessing subsurface data for a subsurface region, wherein the subsurface data comprises one or more seismic images” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “wherein the relationships comprise: (i) spatial relationships including positional descriptors; and (ii) one or both of geological or petrological relationships”; and “controlling hydrocarbon extraction or hydrocarbon production using the one or more images” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional element, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements does not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, does not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, does not recite a particular machine, does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is generically recited and is well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, accessing subsurface data for a subsurface region, wherein the subsurface data comprises one or more seismic images is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. accessing data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, the relationships comprise: (i) spatial relationships including positional descriptors; and (ii) one or both of geological or petrological relationships is disclosed by “Salman 20200278465”, [0002], [0043], [0052], [0086], FIG. 1; and “Bi US 20160124113”, [0010], [0073], [0078], [0080].
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2, 10, 17, 24, 31-35, 37, 39-43, and 45-50 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding claims 1-2, 10, 17, 24, 31-35, 37, 39-43, and 45-50, the most pertinent prior arts are “Cheng US 20130338987”, “Salman US 20200278465”, “Liu US 20190064378”, “Imhof US 20130064040”, “Yarus US 20160170087”, “Roy US 20200088897”, “Bas US 20140278115”, “Nia US 20190107642”, “Yao CN 109086773A”, “Abbas WO 2009090522A1”, “Chen US 20190120049”, “Bi US 20160124113’, and “Du US 20170285196”.
As to claim 1, Cheng teaches accessing subsurface data for a subsurface region, wherein the subsurface data comprises one or more seismic images; (FIG. 5, #500; FIG. 9, Step 902; [0056]); and
automatically extracting a structured representation from the subsurface data (Cheng, [0004], [0024]) by:
identifying geologic and fluid objects in the subsurface data, wherein each object corresponds to a node of the structured representation (Cheng , [0076], FIG. 5, [0081]); and
identifying relationships among the identified geologic and fluid objects, wherein each relationship corresponds to an edge of the structured representation (Cheng, [0076], FIG. 5, [0081]);
automatically analyzing the structured representation (Cheng, [0024]);
one or more seismic images with the relationships superimposed thereon so that the one or more seismic images are on the subsurface data (Cheng, [0096]).
Salman teaches wherein each relationship corresponds to an edge of the structured representation, wherein the relationships comprise: (i) spatial relationships including positional descriptors (Salman, [0043], [0086]); and (ii) one or both of geological or petrological relationships (Salman, [0002], [0052], FIG. 1);
one or more seismic images with respective nodes anchored at respective pixel locations for the respective objects (Salman, [0113] and [0116]).
Liu teaches automatically generating, using the analysis of the structured representation, one or more images for output on a display, the one or more seismic images being based on the subsurface data and being generated to highlight at least one aspect of the structured representation representing the identified geologic and the fluid objects and the relationships among the identified geologic and the fluid objects (Liu, [0007] and [0051], FIGs. 2A and 3, [0042], [0076]).
Du teaches controlling hydrocarbon extraction or hydrocarbon production using the one or more images (Du, [0023], [0104]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “the one or more images comprising the one or more seismic images with respective nodes anchored at respective pixel locations for the respective objects and the spatial relationships and the one or both of the geological or the petrological relationships superimposed thereon so that the one or more seismic images are on the subsurface data and being generated to highlight at least one aspect of the structured representation representing the identified geologic and the fluid objects and the relationships among the identified geologic and the fluid objects” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2, 10, 17, 24, 31-35, 37, 39-43, and 45-50 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-2, 10, 17, 24, 31-35, 37, 39-43, and 45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights