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. Notice to Applicant The following is a Non-Final, first Office Action responsive to Applicant’s communication of 4/14/23 . Claims 1- 6 are pending in the instant application and have been rejected below. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/23 and 1/25/23 is being considered by the examiner. 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- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more. Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03 , the claim 1 is directed to a method which is a statutory category. Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claim 1 recites– A … method of poro-elastic modeling, comprising: a. receiving simulation parameters; b. performing 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling using the simulation parameters, wherein the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling is based on a rescaling of solid rock density and fluid density parameters; and c. storing simulated temporal quasi-static stresses and pore pressures computed by the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling .. . As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, directed to the Abstract idea groupings of “mathematical relationships” as here we have a series of explicit math – receiving simulation parameters (claim 2 gives examples as various mathematical representations of viscosity, permeability, porosity, coefficient, modulus, density, etc), finite difference modeling (a numerical method ) using the parameters (see claim 2) based on rock density and fluid density parameters; and then storing stress and pressures computed by the finite difference modeling . At this time, the claim is viewed as a series of mathematical relationships. Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements include: A computer-implemented method of poro-elastic modeling, comprising: a. receiving simulation parameters; b. performing 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling using the simulation parameters, wherein the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling is based on a rescaling of solid rock density and fluid density parameters; and c. storing simulated temporal quasi-static stresses and pore pressures computed by the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling to a non-transitory computer readable storage mediu m . This is viewed as mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component s ( computer, storing… to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, even if simulator is amended to include a computer, it would be considered MPEP 2106.05(f) ( Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235 ) and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is not patent eligible. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea by naming additional mathematical representations for the parameters in the alternative as discussed above. Claim 3 and 4 have additional elements of “a graphical representation” that is displayed on a “graphical display.” This is considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2a, prong 2 and step 2B. Claim 5 and 6 have additional elements of “ processors, memory, executing instructions to perform ” the method of claim 1. This is considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2a, prong 2 and step 2B. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106. 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annavarapu Srinivas , (US 2021/0096276 ) , in view of Zhang et. al., “Finite-difference modeling of surface waves in poroelastic media and stress mirror conditions,” 2017, Applied Geophysics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pages 105-114 . Concerning claim 1, Annavarapu Srinivas discloses: A computer-implemented method of poro-elastic modeling ( Annavarapu – see par 7 0 -76 – computer-implement ed method for generating a three-dimensional geomechanical model of a subsurface volume… accessing one or more equations of the geomechanical model representing poroelastic behavior ) , comprising: a. receiving simulation parameters ( Annavarapu Srinivas – see par 43 - the geomechanical model may receive input from other models. For example, one or more variables, such as pressure, may be input from a reservoir model as an initial condition to solve for the stress state and consequently return updated porosity and permeability to the reservoir simulator … ) ; b. performing 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling using the simulation parameters, wherein the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling ( Annavarapu – see par 19 - “ Finite difference method” is a numerical method for solving differential equations by approximating them with difference equations, in which finite differences approximate the derivatives. Thus, the finite difference method converts differential equations (e.g., partial or ordinary) into a system of equations, which may then be solved by matrix algebra techniques ; see par 48 - a 3D grid may be defined based on analysis of the seismic and well log data ) is based on a rescaling of solid rock density and fluid … parameters ( Annavarapu see par 38 - The geomechanical model may be generated using one of several approaches. The approach selected may be based on any one, any combination, or all of: a preference on numerical discretization for porous flow and mechanical deformation; solver scheme; inputs to the model; and approximation in poro-mechanics ; see par 41 - the geomechanical model is generated by solving, in combination, the finite element method at one, some or all of the vertices of a respective cell (e.g., along a discrete set of points of a perimeter of the respective cell) ; see par 48 - a 3D grid may be defined based on analysis of the seismic and well log data. Example features of the subsurface may include any one, any combination, or all of: layers of rock properties (e.g., for elastic material, the elastic modulus and the Poisson ratio; density of the rock material , pointwise or layer-wise); porous flow variables (e.g., permeability, porosity, viscosity and fluid saturations (multi-phase)); coupling inputs (e.g., the Biot coefficient, pore and granular compressibility moduli); etc. )). Annavarapu disclose performing a numerical discretization and approximation for its model (See par 38, 41) and having features of rock density and fluid saturations (See par 48). Zhang discloses: b. performing 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling using the simulation parameters, wherein the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling is based on a “ rescaling ” of solid rock density and “ fluid density” parameters ( Zhang, page 106, Col. 1, 2 nd paragraph – last paragraph - Due to the fluid diffusion across the free surface under hydraulic contacts and the creation of a Biot slow wave (Zhang et al., 2011, 2012), finite-difference (FD) modelings of surfaces in porous media require more vigorous conditions to maintain stability in their numerical computations. In this study, we propose a time-domain numerical formulation for FD modeling of surface waves that solves dynamic poroelastic equations ; page 107, Col. 1, “FD surface-wave modeling approach” – All the differential operators are naturally centered at the same point in the space and time domain, which ensures its numerical accuracy and computational efficiency ; page 109, Col. 1, 3 rd paragraph – Courant condition for elastic media is revised by multiplying a partition ratio controlled by a coefficient , which must be positive to generate a stability response; page 109, Table 1 – Material properties include density of fluid and density of solid ; see page 112, Conclusion, Col. 2, last paragraph - Numerical examples demonstrate that with a sufficient Courant condition for internal mesh and more than 10 grids per the lowest wavelengths of the R1 wave along the free surface, the proposed algorithm can obtain stable and precise surface-wave numerical solutions at seismic frequencies. R esults confirm that our proposed approach is efficient and precise. In future work, we will apply this approach to model seismic dispersion and attenuation in porous media characterized by more complex hydraulic contact interface effects. ). Annavarapu and Zhang disclose: c. storing simulated temporal quasi-static stresses and pore pressures computed by the 3D fully coupled quasi-static poro-elastic finite difference modeling ( Annavar a pu see par 53 - A constitutive equation relates the stress state in the rock, σ in Equation (1), to the strains in the rock. For example, one elastic constitutive relation is given by σ′=C:ϵ where C is elastic modulus tensor and ε is rock strain. see par 55 - The mass balance of Equation (3) may be solved with a finite volume discretization for pressure at the center of the cell. This is illustrated in FIG. 2, which is a diagram 200 illustrating the location pressure (P) 220 in a center of grid cell 210. see par 59 - every cell in the unstructured 3D grid may have a corresponding representation in Equations (8) and (9). The two equations, for each cell, form a linear set of equations in order to solve for the model (e.g., solving in order to obtain displacement at a vertex in a designated cell and/or pressure at the center of the designated cell) ; see par 68 - the computer is a high performance computer (HPC), known to those skilled in the art. Such high performance computers typically involve clusters of nodes, each node having multiple CPU's and computer memory that allow parallel computation. see also Zhang - Applicant’s [0039] as published states “Here, we use the term quasi-static to refer to time scales where the deformations associated with propagating elastic waves are considered negligible in amplitude relative to the geomechanical deformations. ” Zhang discloses – see page 106, col. 1, 2 nd paragraph - When a seismic wave propagates beyond a critical angle, P- and S-waves interfere with this interface and generate a surface wave along the surface. Due to the discontinuity in the physical properties, surface-wave modeling faces severe instability problems ; see page 106, col. 1, last paragraph – page 107, col. 2, 1 st paragraph - we propose a time-domain numerical formulation for FD modeling of surface waves that solves dynamic poroelastic equations ; see page 108, col. 2 – equation 36 – calculating stress; T must satisfy the following… to maintain stability in the surface-wave numerical solutions ; see page 109, col. 1, 2 nd paragraph - Because of the solid and fluid coupling in real poroelastic media, the existence of the Darcy coefficient b makes available ; Meanwhile, the stress mirror implementation on the free surface is unaffected by the time integration . ) to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium ( Annavarapu – see par 64 – applications used in conjunction with a computer, programmed to implement methods; CPU; see par 65, 102 – computer system may include non-transitory computer-readable media; causing processors to execute stored computer-executable instructions in any embodiment ) . Both Annavarapu and Zhang are analogous art as they are directed to modeling using finite differences for stress on surfaces (See Annavarapu Abstract , par 19 ; Zhang Abstract , par 34 ). Annavarapu disclose performing a numerical discretization and approximation for its model (See par 38, 41) , having features of rock density and fluid saturations (See par 48). Zhang improves upon Annavarapu by disclosing multiplying a ratio controlled by a coefficient while modeling surfaces with material properties of both fluid density and solid density , and obtaining stable numerical solutions for stress modeling (See page 107, 109, 112 (conclusion)) . One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include a ratio/coefficient for stable models with fluid density and solid density and stable modeling of stress to efficiently improve upon the monitoring and simulating to predict changes in geomehcanical stress in a three-dimensional model in Annavarapu . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of gener ating a three-dimensional geomechanical model in Annavarapu to further include revising using coefficients for a stable model with fluid and solid densities and stable modeling of stress as disclosed in Zhang , claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success . Concerning claims 2 , Annavarapu and Tonkin disclose: The method of claim 1 wherein the simulation parameters include one or more of dynamic viscosity, zero-frequency permeability, porosity, tortuosity, Biot's coefficient, fluid storage coefficient, shear modulus, drained bulk modulus, rock solid density, and fluid density ( Annavarapu see par 28 - “Biot coefficient” is defined by the ratio of drained bulk modulus of rock to the poroelastic expansion coefficient. It describes the change in bulk volume due to a pore pressure change while the stress remains constant. see par 48 - a 3D grid may be defined based on analysis of the seismic and well log data. In particular, seismic data may be analyzed in order to identify various features of the subsurface, such as the materials (e.g., types of rocks) within a particular volume of the subsurface, faults in the subsurface (e.g., a fracture or zone of fractures between two blocks of rock), planes or layers in the subsurface, or the like . Example features of the subsurface may include any one, any combination, or all of: layers of rock properties (e.g., for elastic material, the elastic modulus and the Poisson ratio; density of the rock material , pointwise or layer-wise); porous flow variables (e.g., permeability , porosity, viscosity and fluid saturations (multi-phase)); coupling inputs (e.g., the Biot coefficient, pore and granular compressibility moduli); etc ; see also Zhang - page 109, Table 1 – Material properties include density of fluid and density of solid ; Shear modulus of porous media; bulk modulus of solid ) . It would have been obvious to combine Annavarapu and Zhang for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Concerning claim 3, Annavarapu and Zhang disclose: The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a graphical representation of the simulated temporal quasi-static stresses and displaying the graphical representation on a graphical display ( Annavarapu see par 66 – user interface; output device with display device 520 for a computer; see par 68 - models may be visualized and edited using any interactive visualization programs and associated hardware ) . Concerning claim 4 , Annavarapu and Zhang disclose: The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a graphical representation of the simulated pore pressures and displaying the graphical representation on a graphical display ( Annavarapu – see par 29 - “Pore pressure” means the pressure within the pores of a part of the subsurface, such as a reservoir. For example, the reservoir may be subject to one or more stresses, such as due to in-situ tectonic stress and/or due to the presence of fluids residing within interstitial pore space ; see par 30 – reservoir surveillance data may include “well pressure history”; see par 50 - As another example, an initial pore pressure state for the geomechanical model domain may likewise be input. In particular, the initial pore pressure may be estimated from one of several sources, such as a 1-D model or a reservoir production simulation, in order to incorporate the pore pressure field in the geomechanical model domain. see par 51 - At 150, the finite element method at the vertices and the finite volume method at the center for the cells in the 3D grid may be solved in combination in order to determine rock displacement and/or pressure ; see par 66 – user interface; output device with display device 520 for a computer; see par 68 - models may be visualized and edited using any interactive visualization programs and associated hardwar e; see also Zhang – page 106, col. 2 – p is the pore pressure ) . It would have been obvious to combine Annavarapu and Zhang for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Concerning claim 5 , Annavarapu and Zhang disclose: A computer system, comprising: one or more processors ( Annavarapu – see par 64 - the computer system 500 may comprise a networked, multi-processor computer system that may include a hybrid parallel CPU/GPU system ; see par 67 - v ) ; memory ( Annavarapu – see par 65 - The computer system 500 may also include computer components such as non-transitory, computer-readable media. Examples of computer-readable media include a random access memory (RAM) 506, which may be SRAM, DRAM, SDRAM, or the like. The computer system 500 may also include additional non-transitory, computer-readable media such as a read-only memory (ROM) 508 ; see par 66 - The storage device(s) may be used when RAM 506 is insufficient for the memory requirements associated with storing data for operations of the present techniques. The data storage of the computer system 500 may be used for storing information and/or other data used or generated as disclosed herein. For example, storage device(s) 512 may be used to store configuration information or additional plug-ins in accordance with the present techniques. ) ; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to perform claim 1 ( Annavarapu – see par 64 – applications used in conjunction with a computer, programmed to implement methods; CPU; see par 65, 102 – computer system may include non-transitory computer-readable media; causing processors to execute stored computer-executable instructions in any embodiment ) . Concerning claim 6 , Annavarapu and Zhang disclose: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with one or more processors and memory, cause the device to perform claim 1 ( Annavarapu – see par 64 – applications used in conjunction with a computer, programmed to implement methods; CPU; see par 65, 102 – computer system may include non-transitory computer-readable media; causing processors to execute stored computer-executable instructions in any embodiment ) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rodriguez (US 2015/0112656 ) – directed to generating subsurface stress models (See Abstract) Shen (US 2017/0169137 ) – directed to optimizing hydraulic fracturing design based on 3D damage mechanics (See abstract) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IVAN R GOLDBERG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7949 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 830AM - 430PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anita Coupe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3614 . 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. /IVAN R GOLDBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619