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 .
RCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on February 3, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted below. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Examination of Application
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining, by seismic inversion and using a plurality of measured elastic logs corresponding to a plurality of wells, one or more first elastic attributes of the plurality of wells;
adding respective uncertainty to each of the plurality of measured elastic logs, wherein the respective uncertainty is based on a probability distribution;
generating, based on the added respective uncertainty and the plurality of measured elastic logs, a plurality of simulated elastic logs;
determining, by seismic inversion and using the plurality of simulated elastic logs, one or more second elastic attributes;
determining, based on the respective uncertainty added to each of the plurality of measured elastic logs, the one or more first elastic attributes, and the one or more second elastic attributes, a respective error bound for each of the plurality of measured elastic logs;
performing conditioning one or more of a measured elastic well logs using their respective error bounds to generate one or more conditioned measured elastic well logs; and
comparing the generated one or more conditioned measured elastic well logs with the plurality of measured elastic logs to determine an extent of error in the plurality of measured elastic logs due to seismic inversion performed to generate the plurality of measured elastic logs.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “determining, using a plurality of measured elastic logs corresponding to a plurality of wells, one or more first elastic attributes of the plurality of wells”, “adding respective uncertainty to each of the plurality of measured elastic logs”, “generating, ...a plurality of simulated elastic logs”, “determining, ...one or more second elastic attributes”, “determining, a respective error bound for each of the plurality of measured elastic logs”; “performing conditioning of a measured elastic well log using their respective error bounds to generate one or more conditioned measured elastic well logs” and “comparing the generated one or more conditioned measured elastic well logs with the plurality of measured elastic logs to determine an extent of error in the plurality of measured elastic logs due to seismic inversion performed to generate the plurality of measured elastic logs.” These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, determining an error bound). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II: This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites “a computer-implemented method”; however, it is a generic reference to a method that would be carried out as a mental process and a mathematical or a computational analysis.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites that it is “a computer-implemented method’. However, the component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B: Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 8 and 15 are analogous to claim 1, except that claim 8 additionally recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claim 15 additionally recites one or more processors and a computer-readable storage medium. Having a plurality of hardware components do not change the above §101 analysis. Reciting the processors, and the non-transitory computer-readable media are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16: recites the process of “adjusting ...the respective error bounds for each of the plurality of measured elastic logs” which merely adds to the insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is actually a mathematical or computational analysis and mental process.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17: recites selecting “the plurality of wells” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is a mental process.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18: recites what constitutes “the plurality of measured elastic logs” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is a mental process.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19: recites the constituents of the elastic attributes which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is a mental process.
Dependent claims 6,13 and 20: recites “adding each of the respective set of random numbers to each data value in each of the plurality of measured elastic logs” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is a simple computational or mathematical analysis.
Dependent claims 7 and 14: recites what constitutes for “the respective measured elastic logs” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity being recited which is a mental process.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on February 3, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted above, and further explained below.
Applicant(s) argued that “…, seismic inversion is not a purely mental process, nor does it amount to a mathematical calculation. Seismic inversion is necessarily a computational process that only is performed by a computer system specifically configured to do so. For these reasons, the claimed subject matter falls outside the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/ or computational concepts at Prong 1 of the section §101 analysis” (see Argument, page 10/12, first paragraph, beginning two lines into the paragraph).
However, having a generic computer inherently or explicitly to perform the abstract idea would not transform the abstract idea into a significantly more than an abstract idea concept. The claim amounts to analysis or manipulation of data where these limitations, even as amended could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, determining an error bound). The Court considered the additional elements individually, noting that all the computer functions were "‘well-understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry," each step "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions", and the recited hardware was "purely functional and generic" (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85).
In general, the method in the instant application uses seismic data through the seismic inversion, it should create tangible, physical models of the earth’s subsurface for a specific industrial purpose, such as locating reservoirs or controlling a mechanism through the computational process. However, the instant application, as amended is directed to “comparing the generated one or more conditioned measured elastic well logs with the plurality of measured elastic logs to determine an extent of error in the plurality of measured elastic logs …”.
Further, this analysis involves well log data for the purposes of analyzing uncertainty and determine error bounds and generate an updated log, which the claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Accordingly, the features recited by amended claim 1 are abstract idea can be practically performed in human mind and is simply a mathematical concept in the field of probability or uncertainty determination, just as in pen and pencil being an extension of a human thought process, the inherent computer is used as an extension of a human thought process.
Independent claims 8 and 15 differ in scope relative to amended claim 1, but they are analogous to claim 1, and they are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Madasu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,050,981) discloses a process of predicting future reservoir behavior using an ensemble Kalman filter in conjunction with a deep neural network in accordance with some implementations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857