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 8/5/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/5/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 6 of the remark filed on 8/5/2026 that “… Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20 should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of
“forming a log with the two or more raw reflected waveforms”; “dividing the log into two or more subsections of well attributes”; “forming one or more operating subsections from the two or more subsections”; “identifying one or more incoherent measurements within the one or more operating subsections”; “deriving a noise model for each of the two or more incoherent measurements”, “performing an inversion for each noise model to form an adaptive filter”; and “applying an adaptive subtraction with the adaptive filter on the one or more operating subsections to remove changing intrinsic transducer noises” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 6-8 of the remark filed that “… As discussed in detail below, the present claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter at least because the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. … Although applicant does not necessarily agree with the Examiner's rejection, by this response, independent claim 1 is amended to recite additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. … Under MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), amended claims 1, 12, and 17 are directed towards improvement of a technical field, and as such, integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. … necessarily emphasizes the technical improvement laid out in the specification (e.g. adaptive removal of intrinsic transducer noise from raw reflected waveforms, and additionally adaptation to changing intrinsic transducer noise due to various well attributes). … by illustrating a technical improvement to the field of downhole acoustic measurement within Applicant's specification and thereafter demonstrating said improvement within amended claim 1, Applicant asserts that independent claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis and thus is directed towards patent-eligible subject matter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “disposing a measurement assembly into a wellbore”; “well attributes comprising depth, amplitude, operating frequency, downhole pressure, and/or temperature wherein the two or more subsections comprise different intrinsic transducer noises”; and “incoherent measurements comprising stacking two or more incoherent measurements which amplifies noise to waveform ratio for each noise model” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “performing a measurement operation in the wellbore with the measurement assembly to record two or more raw reflected waveforms at one or more depths in the wellbore with one or more transducers” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. measuring and recording 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). Reporting the one or more differences to a user via a display are a standard procedure in monitoring and processing geophysical data associated with a borehole. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even if transducers are particular machines, above additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The alleged improvement of adaptive removal of intrinsic transducer noise from raw reflected waveforms, and additionally adaptation to changing intrinsic transducer noise due to various well attributes relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-20 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 1-20 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:
disposing a measurement assembly into a wellbore;
performing a measurement operation in the wellbore with the measurement assembly to record two or more raw reflected waveforms at one or more depths in the wellbore with one or more transducers;
forming a log with the two or more raw reflected waveforms;
dividing the log into two or more subsections of well attributes comprising depth, amplitude, operating frequency, downhole pressure, and/or temperature wherein the two or more subsections comprise different intrinsic transducer noises;
forming one or more operating subsections from the two or more subsections;
identifying one or more incoherent measurements within the one or more operating subsections;
deriving a noise model for each of the two or more incoherent measurements comprising stacking two or more incoherent measurements which amplifies noise to waveform ratio for each noise model;
performing an inversion for each noise model to form an adaptive filter; and
applying an adaptive subtraction with the adaptive filter on the one or more operating subsections to remove changing intrinsic transducer noises.”
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 a mathematical concept, 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 elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
disposing a measurement assembly into a wellbore; performing a measurement operation in the wellbore with the measurement assembly to record two or more raw reflected waveforms at one or more depths in the wellbore with one or more transducers; well attributes comprising depth, amplitude, operating frequency, downhole pressure, and/or temperature wherein the two or more subsections comprise different intrinsic transducer noises; incoherent measurements comprising stacking two or more incoherent measurements which amplifies noise to waveform ratio for each noise model.
The additional elements “disposing a measurement assembly into a wellbore”; “well attributes comprising depth, amplitude, operating frequency, downhole pressure, and/or temperature wherein the two or more subsections comprise different intrinsic transducer noises”; and “incoherent measurements comprising stacking two or more incoherent measurements which amplifies noise to waveform ratio for each noise model” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “performing a measurement operation in the wellbore with the measurement assembly to record two or more raw reflected waveforms at one or more depths in the wellbore with one or more transducers” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do 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 elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, disposing a measurement assembly into a wellbore is disclosed by “Li US 20200124758”, FIG. 1, #134, #136; FIG. 4, #134, #136; [0027]; [0042]; and “Holtz US 20170235007”, FIG. 1, #26, #30, #32, #52; [0016], [0017].
For example, recording two or more raw reflected waveforms at one or more depths in the wellbore is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. recording measurement 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).
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 17 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Li US 20200124758”, “Holtz US 20170235007”, “Shi US 20020180613”, “Umeda US 4642800A”, “Kyllingstad US 20080259728”, “Hayman US 20170168183 A1”, “Gardner US 20060098531”, “Coates US 20200116018”, and “Boffi CA 2301338A1.
As to claims 1, 12, and 17, Li teaches disposing a measurement assembly into a wellbore (Li, FIG. 1, [0027], [0036], [0037], [0041], [0044]);
performing a measurement operation in the wellbore with the measurement assembly to record two or more raw reflected waveforms at one or more depths in the wellbore with one or more transducers (Li, FIG. 1, [0027], [0037], [0038], [0040], FIG. 4, [0042]).
Holtz discloses forming a log with the two or more raw reflected waveforms (Holtz, FIG. 2B, #70A, #70B, #70A, #70A, Abstract, [0010], [0012], [0018], [0022], [0030], [0031], [0048]);
dividing the log into two or more subsections (Holtz, [0022], [0030], [0046], [0048]);
forming one or more operating subsections from the two or more subsections (Holtz, FIGs. 2A and 2B, #66, [0012]).
Hayman well attributes comprising depth, amplitude, operating frequency, downhole pressure, and/or temperature (Hayman, [0005], [0023], [0026], [0033], [0039]).
Boffi teaches incoherent measurements comprising stacking two or more incoherent measurements which amplifies noise to waveform ratio for each noise model (Boffi, Abstract; Page 2, Lines 1-6; Page 16, Lines 22-25; Page 21, Lines 5-8; Page 9, Lines 5-16; Page 32, Lines 1-7; Page 39, Lines 13-22).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the two or more subsections comprise different intrinsic transducer noises”;
“identifying one or more incoherent measurements within the one or more operating subsections”;
“deriving a noise model for each of the two or more incoherent measurements”;
“performing an inversion for each noise model to form an adaptive filter”; and
“applying an adaptive subtraction with the adaptive filter on the one or more operating subsections to remove changing intrinsic transducer noise.” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are also distinguished over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 12, and 17.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights