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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 06/08/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 12-30 are pending. Claims 11-20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 21, and 29 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim objections made to claims 1, 21 and 29, the objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 06/08/2026.
With respect to rejections made to claims 1-10 under 35 USC 101 applicant argues that “[a]s shown below, the pending claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One; in any event, the claims integrate any recited exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and they further provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.” (see first paragraph on page 9 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above, the pending claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One and do not integrate any judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two and do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B as further discussed below.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One applicant argues that “the claims do not recite a judicial exception” because “no mathematical relationship, formula equation or calculation is recited in the claims, the claims do not recite a mathematical concept within the meaning of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)”. Applicant further submits that the office action contrary reasoning, that the absence of a recited equation means the claims “would monopolize all possible calculations”, improperly conflates claim breath with subject-matter eligibility and is not a basis recognized by MPEP 2106 for placing a claim within the mathematical-concepts grouping (see second paragraph on page 9 of the remarks). Applicant further argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong One that the claims are not directed to a mental process (see last paragraph on page 9 of the remarks) and that a person cannot, as a practical matter, mentally perform a Fast Fourier Transform on, and triangulation from, sensor data so acquired (see first paragraph 1).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claims are not patent eligible as under Step 2A, Prong One the claims recite a judicial exception since as discussed above the claim(s) 1, 21 and 29 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed by pen and paper or in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. In particular claim 1 recites “converting the sensor measurements into digital data and performing a fast Fourier transform on the digital data” and “performing triangulation for the natural resources that are identified” which are mathematical concepts which can be performed by pen and paper.
Examiner submits that claim 1 further recite the step of “identifying natural resources proximate the locations utilizing the digital data”, which is categorized as mental processes and concepts performed by pen and paper or in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion as it relies in observation/evaluation of the natural resources that are proximate to the locations, which requires judgement, evaluation, observation or opinion.
Examiner further submits with respect to claims 1, 21 and 29 that although performing a Fast Fourier Transform on, and triangulation from, sensor data so acquired would be a complex task to perform in the human mind or by pen and paper, however said Fast Fourier Transform and triangulation determinations are still considered abstract ideas directed towards mathematical concepts and processes that can be purely mental or performed by the aid of pen and paper as discussed above. While implementing the abstract idea would be advantageous to reduce the time it would take to implement complex mathematical operations, it have been held that the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and cannot be considered a practical application of the abstract idea.
The examiner reiterates with respect to the concepts discussed above considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, that although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above the claims 1, 21 and 29 stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant further argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong One that the claims are not directed to a mental process and submits that the claim 1 requires “capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer” and independent claims 21 and 29 likewise require capturing sensor measurements using physical sensor instruments including an accelerometer. Applicant further submits that a person cannot, as a practical matter, mentally capture accelerometer measurements at four or more physical locations within an exploration area” (see last paragraph on page 9 through first paragraph on page 10 of the remarks).
In response the examiner submits that it seems that applicant have misconstrued the rejections under 35 USC 101 and submits that the argued elements applicant relies on “capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer” are additional claim elements considered under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. The argued elements of “capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more as it is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Similarly the method claims 21 and 29, which recite substantially similar claim language as recited by the method of claim 1 stand rejected for similar reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two applicant argues that the claims integrate any exception into a practical application and submits that even if assuming as argued in the office action, that the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and are therefore patent-eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two. Applicant further argues that the claimed method is directed to a specific technological improvement in the field of geological exploration for natural resources and that rather than reciting the abstract idea “as performed” on a generic computer, the claims require a particular, physically grounded process: physical sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer are deployed to capture measurements at four or more locations associated with an exploration area; those measurements are converted to digital data; a Fast Fourier Transform is performed; natural resources proximate the locations are identified; triangulation is performed to determine locations of the identified natural resources; and a report showing predictions and triangulation data is generated. Applicant submits that “[t]his ordered combination yields a concrete, real-world result, the identification and localization of subsurface natural resources, and reflects an improvement to exploration technology as described in the present specification (see second paragraph on page 10 of the remarks) and further argues that the characterization of the sensor-capture limitations as “mere data gathering” recited at a high level of generality, and the report-generation limitations as “insignificant post-solution activity.” is improper. Applicant further submits that the capture of accelerometer measurements at four or more locations is not nominally or generically recited; it defines the physical inputs and spatial arrangement that render the downstream identification and triangulation operative and it is integral to the claimed improvement rather than extra-solution activity and that considered as an ordered combination, the recited steps are not mere “apply it” instructions but a particular technological solution to a problem in geological exploration” (see second paragraph on page 11 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the elements of a Fast Fourier Transform is performed; natural resources proximate the locations are identified; triangulation is performed to determine locations of the identified natural resources recite an abstract idea which recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed by pen and paper or in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
The examiner further submits that under Step 2A, Prong Two the claims as a whole do not integrate any exception into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to claims 1, 21 and 29, the additional claimed elements recited by the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation and because the additional elements recited by the claims amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer) and because the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generating a report showing predictions for the natural resources and triangulation data for the natural resources [claims 1, 21 and 29]) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Examiner further submits that having a sensor to provide measurement data and a processor to perform algorithm steps are well understood routine and conventional activities and the prior art of record shows this. Furthermore, merely calculating (i.e. Fast Fourier Transform, triangulation performed) or using information, (i.e. flow, uncertainty measurement, uncertainty quantity) for analysis and calculation does nothing significant as the additional claim elements (i.e. sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer) are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Furthermore, the additional claimed elements when considered as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field in Step 2A Prong Two as to integrate the judicial exception such that it can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore the claims when considered as a whole even in the ordered combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to those held eligible in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017), in which the claims are directed to a particular configuration of inertial sensors (including accelerometers) and a particular method of using the raw data from those sensors were held not directed to an abstract idea, notwithstanding that the claims employed mathematical equations. Applicant further submits that as in “Thales Visionix the present claims are directed to a particular arrangement and use of physical accelerometer-based sensor instruments –here, sensor instruments capturing measurements at four or more locations—and not to mathematics in the abstract, and that the recited sensor instruments are accordingly a particular machine that imposes meaningful limits on the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(b); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981) (a claim is not unpatentable merely because it includes a mathematical step where the claim as a whole improves a technological process).” (see first paragraph on page 11 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and points to the fact that the court found the Thales Visionix case patent eligible under 101 because they claimed a placement of sensors which was unique, novel or unconventional. There was no prior art to show the placement of the sensors in that specific arrangement and therefore patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
The guidance under 101 specifies that adding well-known or generic devices such as a sensor, a processor, etc. to an abstract idea is not enough to make it patent eligible and does not add anything significant unless is new or unconventional. As discussed above, having a sensor to provide measurement data and a processor to perform algorithm steps are well understood routine and conventional activities and the prior art of record shows this. Furthermore, merely calculating (i.e. Fast Fourier Transform, triangulation performed) or using information, (i.e. sensor measurements) for analysis and calculation does nothing significant as the additional claim elements (i.e. sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer) are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The examiner reiterates that the claimed language do not reflect an improvement to the operation of a computer or to the technology or technical field and that the combination of steps cannot be considered to provide an inventive concept, and submits that the additional claimed elements when considered as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field in Step 2A Prong Two as to integrate the judicial exception such that it can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2B that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception and submits that the office action’s finding than the additional elements are “well-understood, routine and conventional” rests on a generic citation to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and is unsupported by the factual evidence required under Berkhemer v. HP In., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and the USPTO’s Berkheimer Memorandum. Applicant further submits that the office action has not established with the requisite evidentiary support, that capturing accelerometer measurements at four or more locations within an exploration area and performing triangulation to localize subsurface natural resources were well-understood routine and conventional, and that the ordered combination of the recited steps was not, and the conclusory assertion to the contrary cannot sustain the rejection.
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that it seems applicant have misconstrued the position discussed in the outstanding office action. The examiner reiterates that as discussed above the additional claimed elements of “capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer” amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, because the additional claim elements (i.e. sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer) are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” to implement the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely amount to mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extrasolution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood routine and conventional activities.
Courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. receiving or transmitting data) previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception as evidenced by i.e. , not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(I.)(A), MPEP 2106.05(d)(II),). It is noted that capturing accelerometer measurements at four or more locations within an exploration area is known as evidenced by the prior art of record Tinker US 20220091289A1, where sensors 174 for measuring one or more components of a particle acceleration are positioned in the bore at different locations (depths) and wherein accelerometer is disclosed, therefore, the well understood, routine and conventional activities discussed are supported by the factual evidence. Examiner notes that the step of performing triangulation to localize subsurface natural resources argued by applicant have been identified as part of the abstract idea as it describes mathematical concepts as discussed above. In addition, the triangulation is performed with the intended use of localizing subsurface natural resources and the localization of subsurface natural resources is not positively recited as to integrate the judicial exception as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant further argues that the additional claimed elements rejected by dependent claims recite additional features that further confirm eligibility and requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-10 and 21-30 under 35 USC 101 (see second paragraph on page 12 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above (see 35 USC 101 rejections) Dependent claims 2-10 and 22-28 and 30 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired (i.e. capturing sensor measurements at 1Hz or slower, within a range of 1 microhertz to 100 microhertz) and applied for performing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 22-28 and 30, do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons discussed with respect to respective independent claims 1, 21 and 29 from which they depend.
Therefore for similar reasons as discussed above the additional elements disclosed by dependent claims 2-10 and 22-28 and 30 fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above claims 1-10, and 21-30 stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 made to the claims, applicant argues that the need to combine three references, each supplying a different limitation, is itself indicative of impermissible hindsight reconstruction in which the claims are used as a roadmap (see first paragraph on page 13 of the remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that incorporating Tinker’s Fast Fourier Transform would provide “superior computational efficiency and enhanced data interpretation and noise reduction” is conclusory and is not shown to be drawn from the cited art as applied to Boiero’s particular method for locating natural resources and submits that absent a sufficient articulated reason, originating in the references rather than in applicant’s own disclosure to modify Boiero in the manner claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established (see penultimate paragraph on page 13 of the remarks).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is noted that Boiero disclose a Fourier Transform being applied, (see para. 0174) but that Boiero do not expressly or explicitly discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform.
Tinker was brought into the combination as disclosing a system and method for monitoring, locating and characterizing of the subsurface. Tinker further discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for processing the data acquired (see para. 0285-0286).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boiero and use the known Fast Fourier Transform disclosed by Tinker to process the data acquired for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for subsurface exploration that would allow for accurate characterization and location of subsurface resources, since it is known that Fast Fourier Transform would provide superior computational efficiency and enhanced data interpretation and performing effective noise reduction in order to detect subtle geological features that might be hidden in raw time-domain data.
Applicant argues that the Office Action has not established that the combination discloses “capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations” as recited in claim 1 and submits that the passages cited from Boiero refer generally to sensors positioned “in the bore at different locations (depth)”, which does not establish the claimed captured at four or more locations associated with an exploration area (see last paragraph on page 13 of the remarks). Applicant further requests that the Office Action identify express disclosure of the claimed “four or more locations” failing which the limitation is not taught by the asserted combination (see first paragraph on page 14 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits Boiero disclose, a method for locating natural resources (see Fig. 8, step 838), the method comprising: capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer (see Figs. 1, 8, step 812; para 0003, 0035, 0049, 0184, wherein the sensors can measure one or more components of a particle acceleration’ wherein sensors 174 are positioned in the bore at different locations (depth), and wherein an accelerometer is disclosed). As can be seen on Figures 1, it is clear that the sensor measurements are captured at different depths 1-5 and that each depth correspond to different location meeting the four or more locations.
With respect to claim 21 and dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 23, 24 and 27-28 applicant have presented similar arguments to those with respect to independent claim 1. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103.
With respect to claims 3 and 22 applicant have presented similar arguments to those with respect to claims 1 and 21. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 21.
With respect to claims 5 and 26 applicant have presented similar arguments to those with respect to claims 1 and 21. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 21.
With respect to claim 9 applicant argues that In re Aller is inapposite because the Office Action has not established that the claimed measurement range was recognized in the art as a result-effective variable and that Clark does not disclose or suggest the claimed range of 1microhertz to 100 microhertz since Clark’s cited microhertz figures describe the resolution or precision of the gravimetry and not the frequency range within which the sensor measurements are captured (see last paragraph of page 15 of the remarks).
It is noted that Boiero disclose wherein the sensor measurements are captured is in a frequency range of approximately 1Hz to approximately 100 Hz is disclosed (see para. 0002, 0027). Clark was brought into the combination as discussing different frequency ranges for measurements (i.e. 0 to 1.2 microhertz, [para. 0219, Fig. 7A], 1 to 10 microhertz, [para. 0219-0220, figs. 7A-7B]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Boiero of providing data in terms of one or more frequencies and frequency ranges and low frequency (see para. 0002, 0027, 0066, 0078) and of acceleration measurements (0049, 0184) it would have been obvious to con figure the system of Boiero as modified by Tinker and Manzoor with the teachings of Clark discussed as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the measurements in a range of 1 microhertz to 100 microhertz since this would be the best engineering design choice for that system in particular in order to achieve the desired measurement resolution. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that the original disclosure of the invention does not indicates the criticality of selecting the particular range of 1 microhertz to 100 microhertz since the original disclosure of the invention states that different ranges can be used outside of the claimed range (see para. 0007), therefore the optimum value can be chosen by one of ordinary skilled in the art as the range is non-critical and any range value can be used, rendering the particular range claimed obvious over the prior art. Finally present application does not provide a reasoning or any information in which the combination of the present limitations would provide unexpected result in the measurements that the combination of the prior art Boiero, Tinker, Manzoor and Clark would provide as well.
It is noted that Boiero disclose wherein the sensor measurements are captured is in a frequency range of approximately 1Hz to approximately 100 Hz is disclosed(see para. 0002, 0027). Clark was brought into the combination as discussing different frequency ranges for measurements (i.e. 0 to 1.2 microhertz, [para. 0219, Fig. 7A], 1 to 10 microhertz, [para. 0219-0220, figs. 7A-7B]). Therefore the sensor measurements in Clark are within a range (resolution range) of 1microhertz to 100 microhertz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Boiero as modified by Tinker and Manzoor with the teachings of Clark discussed to select the measurements in a range (resolution range) of 1 microhertz to 100 microhertz since this would be the best engineering design choice for that system in particular in order to achieve the desired measurement resolution. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 25 applicant have presented similar arguments to those with respect to independent claim 21. In response, the examiner disagrees for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 and 21 above.
With respect to applicant arguments with respect to claims 29 applicant argues that independent claim 29 is allowable for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 21 and with respect to 35 USC 101 and 103, and submits that claim 29 recites a particular physical recites a particular physical configuration not taught by the asserted combination, “securing sensor instruments within a plurality of location associated with an exploration area” and capturing measurements “utilizing sensor instruments including at least a battery, a weather proof case, and an accelerometer”. Applicant submits that reaching claim 29 requires the Office action to combine four references (Boiero, Tinker, Manzoor, and Mekic), which underscores that the claimed combination would not have been obvious and reflects impermissible hindsight. Applicant submits that Mekic is cited only for digital data that “includes concentrations of the natural resources” and does not cure the deficiencies of the underlying combination and that claim 30 is allowable at least by virtue of its dependency on independent claim 29.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to claim 29, examiner submits that Boiero disclose the argued feature of “securing sensor instruments within a plurality of location associated with an exploration area” in particular sensors 174 are below surface layer and positioned in the bore; alternatively sensors may be positioned along a string or strings to form a streamer that may be deployed in a bore, and wherein sensors 174 are positioned in the bore at different locations (depths) 1-5 as shown in Figure 1, therefore it is implied that the sensor is secured (see Fig. 8, step 812, para. 0003, 0035, 0043, 0049, 0184). Boiero further disclose capturing measurements “utilizing sensor instruments including at least a battery, and an accelerometer” (see Figs. 1 and 8, step 812, para. 0003, 0035, 0043, 0049, 0184), in particular Boiero disclose the sensors can measure one or more components of particle acceleration, wherein sensors 174 are positioned in the bore at different locations, and wherein an accelerometer is disclosed (para. 0184) and further disclose the system including at least a battery (para. 0184).
Tinker was brought into the combination as disclosing Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for processing the data acquired (see para. 0285-0286) and the sensor instruments including a weather proof case (see para. 0147-0151).
One of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed would have recognized that providing sensor instruments including weather proof enclosure/case, would have been obvious in order to provide a means that offers protection from harsh, wet or outdoor environment and to ensure that the system components are protected; furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the use of the known Fast Fourier Transform discussed by Tinker to process the data acquired would have provide an enhanced system for subsurface exploration that would allow for accurate characterization and location of subsurface resources, since it is known that Fast Fourier Transform would provide superior computational efficiency and enhanced data interpretation and performing effective noise reduction in order to detect subtle geological features that might be hidden in the raw time-domain data.
Therefore the combination of Boiero, Tinker, Manzoor and Mekik disclose the combination of elements of claim 29 as discussed with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections for claim 29 above.
Therefore for the reasons discussed above regarding to claims 1, 21, and 29 and their respective dependent claims, the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101 and 103.
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 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Step 1
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a method. Likely claims 21 and claim 29 , belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method, reciting similar steps to those of independent claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong One
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, 21 and 29 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed by pen and paper or in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for converting the sensor measurements into digital data; performing a fast Fourier transform on the digital data; identifying natural resources proximate the locations utilizing the digital data; performing triangulation for the natural resources that are identified (claim 1); “converting the sensor measurements into digital data; performing a fast Fourier transform on the digital data; identifying natural resources proximate the locations utilizing the digital data; performing triangulation for the natural resources that are identified to determine locations associated with the natural resources; generating a report showing predictions for the natural resources including types of natural resources and locations associated with the natural resources” (claim 21); and “converting the sensor measurements into digital data; performing a fast Fourier transform on the digital data; identifying natural resources proximate the locations utilizing the digital data; performing triangulation for the natural resources that are identified to determine locations associated with the natural resources” (claim 29).
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation of “the recitation “capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer” recited by claim 1, “capturing sensor measurements at a plurality of locations associated with an exploration area utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer” recited by claim 21 and “capturing sensor measurements at the plurality of locations associated with the exploration area utilizing sensor instruments including at least a battery, a weather proof case, and an accelerometer” recited by claim 29, is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generating a report showing predictions for the natural resources and triangulation data for the natural resources [claims 1, 21 and 29]) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One
Dependent claims 2-10 and 22-28 and 30 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claims 1, 21 and 29.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 22-28 and 30 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. “wherein the triangulation data is a three- dimensional location” (claim 4); “wherein the predictions include at least a type of the natural resources and location of the natural resources in three dimensions” (claim 6); “wherein the sensor measurements are within a range of 1 microhertz to 100 microhertz” (claim 9); “wherein the locations are mapped to the exploration area in a mapping application displayable to a plurality of users” (claims 24 and 30); “wherein the digital data further includes concentrations of the natural resources” (claim 25).
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-10 and 22-28 and 30 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “system” “performing, identifying, and generating” steps recited by claim 8 amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of : “wherein the sensor measurements are captured at 1 Hz or slower” (claims 2 and 23) amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality; and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (claims 24 and 30), the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input/stored (claims 7 and 27) and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use i.e. “sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are water resistant and battery powered” (claim 3), “wherein the sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are resistant to weather and the environment of the exploration area” (claim 22), “wherein the sensor instruments are buried in ground or mounted to a secure fixture” (claim 10), “wherein the sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are resistant to weather and the environment of the exploration area” (claim 28) and “wherein the report is a keyhole markup language (KML) file” (claims 5, 26), in which the additional claimed limitations merely use the abstract idea in the context of Keyhole Markup Language (KML) that provides only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the modifications are performed, which is equivalent to the words “apply it” and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore the additional claimed limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 2-10 and 22-28 and 30 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 21, 23, 24, 27-28, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiero et al. US2020/0292724A1 (hereinafter Boiero) in view of Tinker et al. US 20220091289 A1 (hereinafter Tinker) in further view of Manzoor US20210208304A1.
Regarding claim 1, Boiero disclose, a method for locating natural resources (see Fig. 8, step 838), the method comprising: capturing sensor measurements at four or more locations utilizing sensor instruments including at least an accelerometer (see Figs. 1, 8, step 812; para 0003, 0035, 0049, 0184, wherein the sensors can measure one or more components of a particle acceleration’ wherein sensors 174 are positioned in the bore at different locations (depth), and wherein an accelerometer is disclosed);
converting the sensor measurements into digital data (see para. 0039acquisition equipment may convert signals sensed by a sensor to digital samples);
performing Fourier Transform on the digital data (see para. 0174);
identifying natural resources proximate the locations utilizing the digital data (see para. 0054, wherein analysis of the data may reveal one or more possible locations of hydrocarbon deposits in one or more subterranean geological formations);
performing triangulation for the natural resources that are identified (para. 0060, wherein triangulation can be used to place reflections indicated n seismic data in estimated locations which can be interpreted [e.g. identify a structure, fluid, etc.]);
generating a report showing the natural resources (see para. 0186, wherein display is disclosed to output a representation of a subterranean formation) and triangulation data for the natural resources (see para. 0060, wherein an image of subsurface regions of the Earth by seismic reflection is disclosed and wherein triangulation can be used to place reflections indicated in seismic data in estimated locations, which might be interpreted to identify a structure, fluid etc.).
However although Boiero disclose a Fourier Transform being applied (see para. 0174) and predictions (see para. 0148), however, Boiero do not expressly or explicitly discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform and it do not specifically disclose the report generated showing prediction for natural resources.
Tinker discloses a system and method for monitoring, locating and characterizing of the subsurface (see abstract, para. 0002-0003, 0006). Tinker further discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for processing the data acquired (see para. 0285-0286).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boiero and use the known Fast Fourier Transform disclosed by Tinker to process the data acquired for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for subsurface exploration that would allow for accurate characterization and location of subsurface resources, since it is known that Fast Fourier Transform would provide superior computational efficiency and enhanced data interpretation and performing effective noise reduction in order to detect subtle geological features that might be hidden in raw time-domain data.
However the combination of Boiero and Tinker do not expressly or explicitly disclose the report generated showing prediction for natural resources.
Manzoor disclose a system and method of developing a hydrocarbon reservoir and generating for a 3D tetrahedral mesh a 3D triangulated tetrahedral mesh and a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir (abstract, para. 0029, 0038, 0052). Manzoor further discloses that the simulation may include data that includes a prediction of movement of fluids, such a water or hydrocarbons, within the reservoir over time and wherein the dual mesh model or the simulation is presented on a graphical display for viewing (see para. 0037, 0053).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Boiero as modified by Tinker with the teachings of Manzoor as disclosed above to generate a report showing prediction for natural resources and triangulation data for the natural resources for the benefit of providing an enhanced system by allowing for proper characterization of the subsurface by making an user aware of the status of the subsurface in order to properly assess the subsurface and locate of hydrocarbons present in the reservoir.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above. Boiero further disclose wherein the sensor measurements are captured at 1 Hz or slower (see para. 0002, 0027 wherein the seismic data is in a frequency range of approximately 1Hz is disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero further disclose wherein the triangulation data is a three- dimensional location (see para. 0060, wherein 3D seismic survey, seismic tomographic data can be volumetric is disclosed).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Although Boiero disclose predictions being made (see para. 0148), at least a type of natural resources (see para. 0054, 0093) and locations of natural resources in three dimensions (see para. 0054, 0060).
However the combination of Boiero and Tinker do not specifically disclose the predictions include at least a type of the natural resources and location of the natural resources in three dimensions.
Manzoor disclose a system and method of developing a hydrocarbon reservoir and generating for a 3D tetrahedral mesh a 3D triangulated tetrahedral mesh and a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir (abstract, para. 0029, 0038, 0052). Manzoor further disclose the predictions include at least a type of the natural resources and location of the natural resources (see para. 0037, 0053, wherein the simulation may include data that includes a prediction of movement and location of fluids, such a water or hydrocarbons (type of the natural resources), within the reservoir over time and wherein the dual mesh model or the simulation is presented on a graphical display for viewing) in three dimensions (see para. 0029, 0038, 0052).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Boiero as modified by Tinker with the teachings of Manzoor as disclosed above where the predictions include at least a type of the natural resources and location of the natural resources in three dimensions for the benefit of providing an enhanced system by allowing for proper characterization of the subsurface by making an user aware of the status of the subsurface in order to properly assess the subsurface and locate of natural resources present within the reservoir as well as predictions of movement of fluids within the reservoir at different times that would aid in the determination of reservoir development (see para. 0037).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero further disclose saving the sensor measurements to a memory associated with each of the sensor instruments (see Fig. 2, para. 0046-0047, 0158, wherein the system may store raw and/or processed data in one or more information storage devices 252).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero further disclose, wherein the performing, identifying, and generating are performed by a system (Figs. 1-2, system 250, para. 0003, 0028-0030, 0046).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero further disclose wherein the sensor instruments are buried in ground or mounted to a secure fixture (see para. 0035, Fig. 1, where sensors 174 are below surface layer and positioned in the bore; alternatively sensors may be positioned along a string or strings to form a streamer that may be deployed in a bore, see para. 0043).
Regarding claim 21, Boiero disclose a method for locating natural resources (see Fig. 8, step 838), the method comprising:
capturing sensor measurements at a plurality of locations associated with an exploration area utilizing sensor instruments including at least accelerometer (see Figs. 1, 8, step 812; para 0003, 0035, 0049, 0184, wherein the sensors can measure one or more components of a particle acceleration wherein sensors 174 are positioned in the bore at different locations (depth) and wherein an accelerometer is disclosed);
converting the sensor measurements into digital data (see para. 0039acquisition equipment may convert signals sensed by a sensor to digital samples);
performing a Fourier transform on the digital data (see para. 0174);
identifying natural resources proximate the locations utilizing the digital data (see para. 0054, wherein analysis of the data may reveal one or more possible locations of hydrocarbon deposits in one or more subterranean geological formations);
performing triangulation for the natural resources that are identified to determine locations associated with the natural resources (para. 0060, wherein triangulation can be used to place reflections indicated n seismic data in estimated locations which can be interpreted [e.g. identify a structure, fluid, etc.]);
generating a report showing the natural resources (see para. 0054, 0186, wherein display is disclosed to output a representation of a subterranean formation) including types of natural resources (see para. 0054, 0093) and locations associated with the natural resources (see para. 0054, 0060, wherein an image of subsurface regions of the Earth by seismic reflection is disclosed and wherein triangulation can be used to place reflections indicated in seismic data in estimated locations, which might be interpreted to identify a structure, fluid etc.).
However although Boiero disclose a Fourier Transform being applied (see para. 0174) and predictions (see para. 0148), however, Boiero do not expressly or explicitly discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform and it do not specifically disclose the report generated showing prediction for natural resources.
Tinker discloses a system and method for monitoring, locating and characterizing of the subsurface (see abstract, para. 0002-0003, 0006). Tinker further discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for processing the data acquired (see para. 0285-0286).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boiero and use the known Fast Fourier Transform disclosed by Tinker to process the data acquired for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for subsurface exploration that would allow for accurate characterization and location of subsurface resources, since it is known that Fast Fourier Transform would provide superior computational efficiency and enhanced data interpretation and performing effective noise reduction in order to detect subtle geological features that might be hidden in raw time-domain data.
However the combination of Boiero and Tinker do not expressly or explicitly disclose the report generated showing prediction for natural resources.
Manzoor disclose a system and method of developing a hydrocarbon reservoir and generating for a 3D tetrahedral mesh a 3D triangulated tetrahedral mesh and a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir (abstract, para. 0029, 0038, 0052). Manzoor further discloses that the simulation may include data that includes a prediction of movement of fluids, such a water or hydrocarbons, within the reservoir over time and wherein the dual mesh model or the simulation is presented on a graphical display for viewing (see para. 0037, 0053).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Boiero as modified by Tinker with the teachings of Manzoor as discussed above to generating a report showing predictions for the natural resources including types of natural resources and locations associated with the natural resources for the benefit of providing an enhanced system by allowing for proper characterization of the subsurface by making an user aware of the status of the subsurface in order to properly assess the subsurface and locate of hydrocarbons present in the reservoir.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above. Boiero further disclose wherein the sensor measurements are captured at 1 Hz or slower (see para. 0002, 0027 wherein the seismic data is in a frequency range of approximately 1Hz is disclosed).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above. Boiero further disclose rendering an image of at least a portion of the region of the Earth to a display, wherein the image can aid in the identification of one or more geological formation and one or more locations of hydrocarbon deposits in the one or more subterranean geological formations (see abstract, para. 0003, 0054, 0060) and further disclose that an user may view output from an interact with a process via an I/O through user-friendly interfaces (para. 0030, 0182).
However Boiero do not specifically disclose the locations are mapped to the exploration area in a mapping application displayable to a plurality of users.
Tinker disclose locations are mapped to the exploration area in a mapping application displayable to a plurality of users (see para. 0007, 0013, 0052, 0070, 0146, wherein a User Interface Subsystem that provides a unified operation al picture with interactive display of maps, geographic data and information relating to alerts and to provide alert status alerts updates to maps an logs and to the operators is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Boiero with the teachings of Tinker where the locations are mapped to the exploration area in a mapping application displayable to a plurality of users for the benefit of allowing for real-time visualization of data fostering shared visualization for managing collaborative tasks of the geological data and to provide enhanced interpretation of subsurface.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero further disclose saving the sensor measurements to a memory associated with each of the sensor instruments (see Fig. 2, para. 0046-0047, 0158, wherein the system may store raw and/or processed data in one or more information storage devices 252).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero further disclose wherein the sensor instruments are buried in ground or mounted to a secure fixture (see para. 0035, Fig. 1, where sensors 174 are below surface layer and positioned in the bore; alternatively sensors may be positioned along a string or strings to form a streamer that may be deployed in a bore, see para. 0043).
Claim(s) 3, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiero et al. US2020/0292724A1 (hereinafter Boiero) in view of Tinker et al. US 20220091289 A1 (hereinafter Tinker) in further view of Manzoor US20210208304A1 in further view of Ivan et al. US20220112778A1 (hereinafter Ivan).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above. Although Boiero disclose the instruments may be a mobile device including components such as motion processing circuitry (i.e. accelerometer) and battery powered (see para. 0184, wherein the system being stand-alone is implied).
However the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor do not specifically disclose the sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are water resistant (emphasis added).
Ivan discloses a system for identifying downhole conditions and conducting wellbore analysis (see para. 0002). Ivan further disclose sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are water resistant (see para. 0057, wherein a sensor system including an accelerometer and powered by one or more batteries and protected by a water-resistant polycarbonate enclosure is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Ivan as discussed above to modify the system of Boiero, as modified by Tinker and Manzoor and to configure the system with sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are water resistant as taught by Ivan for the benefit of providing a means that offer high durability and reliability in harsh, wet or outdoor environments, providing a robust protection mechanism that prevents moisture related failures and corrosion and allowing for long-term deployment without frequent servicing and independent operation without external power.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above. Although Boiero disclose the instruments may be a mobile device including components such as motion processing circuitry (i.e. accelerometer) and battery powered (see para. 0184, wherein the system being stand-alone is implied).
However the combination of Boiero, the sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are resistant to weather and the environment of the exploration area (emphasis added).
Thinker disclose a physical infrastructure subsystem providing continuous power and grounding to the sensor subsystem and other field components and weather proof and tamper evident enclosures that house electronic components (see para. 0147-0151).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Thinker as discussed above to modify the system of Boiero, with sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are resistant to weather for the benefit of providing a means that protection from harsh, wet or outdoor environment to ensure the system components are protected.
Tinker and Manzoor do not specifically disclose the sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are resistant to the environment of the exploration area (emphasis added).
Ivan discloses a system for identifying downhole conditions and conducting wellbore analysis (see para. 0002). Ivan further disclose sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are resistant to the environment of the exploration area (see para. 0057, wherein a sensor system including an accelerometer and powered by one or more batteries and protected by a water-resistant polycarbonate enclosure is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Ivan as discussed above to modify the system of Boiero, as modified by Tinker and Manzoor and to configure the system with sensor instruments are stand- alone devices that are resistant to the environment (i.e. water resistant) of the exploration area as taught by Ivan for the benefit of providing a means that offer high durability and reliability in harsh, wet or outdoor environments, providing a robust protection mechanism that prevents moisture related failures and corrosion and allowing for long-term deployment without frequent servicing and independent operation without external power.
Claim(s) 5 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiero et al. US2020/0292724A1 (hereinafter Boiero) in view of Tinker et al. US 20220091289 A1 (hereinafter Tinker) in further view of Manzoor US20210208304A1 in further view of Broussard et al. US 2009/0063230A1 (hereinafter Broussard).
Regarding claims 5 and 26, the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
However the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor do not specifically disclose that the report is a keyhole markup language (KML) file.
Broussard disclose a method for performing oilfield operations relating to subterranean formations having reservoirs therein (see para. 0003). Broussard further disclose a report being provided in which the report is a Keyhole Markup Language (KML) file (see para. 0089).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Broussard discussed above, to configure the system of Boiero, as modified by Tinker and Manzoor with a report being a keyhole markup language (KML) file, for the benefit of providing an visualization presentation of the results which allows for complex analysis results to pe displayed in an user friendly intuitive visual format and allowing for sharing visual information of the subsurface.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiero et al. US2020/0292724A1 (hereinafter Boiero) in view of Tinker et al. US 20220091289 A1 (hereinafter Tinker) in further view of Manzoor US20210208304A1 in further view of Clark US 2015/0177272A1 (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 9 , the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
However the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor do not specifically disclose that the sensor measurements are within a range of 1 microhertz to 100 microhertz.
Clark discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) gravimeters device, wherein the MEMS include accelerometers measuring signals (see abstract, para. 0003, 0107, para. 0109-0111, 0224, 0244-0245), and further discloses MEMS gravimeters for measuring gravitational fields/waves for oil exploration, etc. (see para. 0196-0197, 0199-0200, 0244-0245) and wherein precisions of such gravimetry with a resolution in the ranges from 0 to 1.2 microhertz (para. 0219, Fig. 7A), of 1-1.2 microhertz and suggests that a resolution of about 1 to 10 microhertz can be used in a particular test case in order to achieve the a certain resolution (see para. 0219-0220, Figs. 7A-7B).
Therefore, given the teachings of Boiero of providing data in terms of one or more frequencies and frequency ranges and low frequency (see para. 0002, 0027, 0066, 0078) and of acceleration measurements (0049, 0184) it would have been obvious to con figure the system with the teachings of Clark of a MEMS gravimeters including accelerometers, for measuring gravitational waves, and which suggests a resolution of 0 to 1.2 micro hertz or about 1 to 10 microhertz in a particular test case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the measurements in a range of 1 microhertz to 100 microhertz since this would be the best engineering design choice for that system in particular in order to achieve the desired measurement resolution. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 25 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiero et al. US2020/0292724A1 (hereinafter Boiero) in view of Tinker et al. US 20220091289 A1 (hereinafter Tinker) in further view of Manzoor US20210208304A1 in further view of Mekic et al. US2015/0109886A1 (hereinafter Mekic).
Regarding claim 25 , the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero disclose the data being in digital form (para. 0039, 0047).
However the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor do not specifically disclose that the digital data further includes concentrations of the natural resources (emphasis added).
Mekic disclose a method of estimating characteristics of an earth formation, including digital systems (see abstract, para. 0055) in which imaging results are analyzed and/or interpreted to estimate formation and/or characterization parameters in which areas of high hydrocarbon concentrations is identified based on analyzing the attributes of received signals (see para. 0012, wherein the data includes concentrations of the natural resources).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Mekic discussed above, to configure the system of Boiero, as modified by Tinker and Manzoor with data including concentrations of the natural resources, for the benefit of providing an enhanced and accurate characterization of the subsurface that can lead to more accurate execution of energy industry operations such as completion and simulation operations (see para. 0012).
Regarding claim 29, Boiero disclose a method for locating natural resources (see Fig. 8, step 838), the method comprising:
securing sensor instruments within a plurality of locations associated with an exploration area (see Figs. 1, 8, step 812; para 0003, 0035, 0043, 0049, 0184, where sensors 174 are below surface layer and positioned in the bore; alternatively sensors may be positioned along a string or strings to form a streamer that may be deployed in a bore, and wherein the sensors can measure one or more components of a particle acceleration’ and wherein sensors 174 are positioned in the bore at different locations (depth), and wherein an accelerometer is disclosed, therefore it is implied the sensor to be secured);
capturing sensor measurements at the plurality of locations associated with the exploration area utilizing sensor instruments including at least a battery, and an accelerometer (see Figs. 1, 8, step 812; para 0003, 0035, 0049, 0184, wherein the sensors can measure one or more components of a particle acceleration’ wherein sensors 174 are positioned in the bore at different locations (depth), and wherein an accelerometer is disclosed; wherein the system include at least a battery);
converting the sensor measurements into digital data (see para. 0039, acquisition equipment may convert signals sensed by a sensor to digital samples);
performing a Fourier Transform on the digital data (see para. 0174);;
identifying natural resources proximate the locations utilizing the digital data (see para. 0054, wherein analysis of the data may reveal one or more possible locations of hydrocarbon deposits in one or more subterranean geological formations);
performing triangulation for the natural resources that are identified to determine locations associated with the natural resources (para. 0060, wherein triangulation can be used to place reflections indicated n seismic data in estimated locations which can be interpreted [e.g. identify a structure, fluid, etc.]);
generating a report showing the natural resources including types of natural resources (see para. 0054, 0093, 0186, wherein display is disclosed to output a representation of a subterranean formation, wherein information about one or more types of fluids, which can include one or more hydrocarbon fluids is disclosed), and locations associated with the natural resources (see para. 0060, wherein an image of subsurface regions of the Earth by seismic reflection is disclosed and wherein triangulation can be used to place reflections indicated in seismic data in estimated locations, which might be interpreted to identify a structure, fluid etc.).
However although Boiero disclose a Fourier Transform being applied (see para. 0174) and predictions (see para. 0148), however, Boiero do not expressly or explicitly discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform , the sensor instruments including a weather proof case and that the report generated showing prediction for natural resources and concentrations of the natural resources.
Tinker discloses a system and method for monitoring, locating and characterizing of the subsurface (see abstract, para. 0002-0003, 0006). Tinker further discloses the use of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for processing the data acquired (see para. 0285-0286) and the sensor instruments including a weather proof case (see para. 0147-0151).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Thinker as discussed above to modify the system of Boiero, with sensor instruments including a weather proof enclosure/case for the benefit of providing a means that protection from harsh, wet or outdoor environment to ensure the system components are protected; and to use the known Fast Fourier Transform disclosed by Tinker to process the data acquired for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for subsurface exploration that would allow for accurate characterization and location of subsurface resources, since it is known that Fast Fourier Transform would provide superior computational efficiency and enhanced data interpretation and performing effective noise reduction in order to detect subtle geological features that might be hidden in raw time-domain data.
However the combination of Boiero and Tinker do not expressly or explicitly disclose the report generated showing prediction for natural resources and concentrations of the natural resources.
Manzoor disclose a system and method of developing a hydrocarbon reservoir and generating for a 3D tetrahedral mesh a 3D triangulated tetrahedral mesh and a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir (abstract, para. 0029, 0038, 0052). Manzoor further discloses that the simulation may include data that includes a prediction of movement of fluids, such a water or hydrocarbons, within the reservoir over time and wherein the dual mesh model or the simulation is presented on a graphical display for viewing (see para. 0037, 0053).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Boiero as modified by Tinker with the teachings of Manzoor as disclosed above to generate a report showing prediction for natural resources for the natural resources for the benefit of providing an enhanced system by allowing for proper characterization of the subsurface by making an user aware of the status of the subsurface in order to properly assess the subsurface and locate of hydrocarbons present in the reservoir.
However the combination of Boiero, Tinker and Manzoor do not specifically disclose that the data further including concentrations of the natural resources (emphasis added).
Mekic disclose a method of estimating characteristics of an earth formation, including digital systems (see abstract, para. 0055) in which imaging results are analyzed and/or interpreted to estimate formation and/or characterization parameters in which areas of high hydrocarbon concentrations is identified based on analyzing the attributes of received signals (see para. 0012, wherein the data includes concentrations of the natural resources).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Mekic discussed above, to configure the report generated by the system of Boiero, as modified by Tinker and Manzoor with to show data including concentrations of the natural resources, for the benefit of providing an enhanced and accurate characterization of the subsurface that can lead to more accurate execution of energy industry operations such as completion and simulation operations (see para. 0012).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Boiero, Tinker, Manzoor and Mekic disclose the materials discussed above.
Boiero further disclose rendering an image of at least a portion of the region of the Earth to a display, wherein the image can aid in the identification of one or more geological formation and one or more locations of hydrocarbon deposits in the one or more subterranean geological formations (see abstract, para. 0003, 0054, 0060) and further disclose that an user may view output from an interact with a process via an I/O through user-friendly interfaces (para. 0030, 0182).
However Boiero do not specifically disclose the locations are mapped to the exploration area in a mapping application displayable to a plurality of users.
Tinker disclose locations are mapped to the exploration area in a mapping application displayable to a plurality of users (see para. 0007, 0013, 0052, 0070, 0146, wherein a User Interface Subsystem that provides a unified operation al picture with interactive display of maps, geographic data and information relating to alerts and to provide alert status alerts updates to maps an logs and to the operators is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Boiero with the teachings of Tinker where the locations are mapped to the exploration area in a mapping application displayable to a plurality of users for the benefit of allowing for real-time visualization of data fostering shared visualization for managing collaborative tasks of the geological data and to provide enhanced interpretation of subsurface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imhof et al. CA 2764681 A1 disclose a method for seismic interpretation using seismic texture attributes in which attribute data volume can be used for inferring hydrocarbon potential and further discuss transforming seismic survey data volume into seismic attribute data volume more sensitive to subsurface geophysical features indicative of hydrocarbon potential in which attributes are computed may be computed using discrete Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) (see abstract, para. 0007, 0023, 0028, 0053) and further discuss the estimation of results between analysis points by triangulation (para. 0052).
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 YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 A 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights