DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/15/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility launder 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
Analysis has been updated based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a method.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method that comprises the limitations of:
a) selecting the geographical area to be surveyed;
b) determining placement for one or more control areas, wherein each control area comprises a plurality of stations, within the geographical area;
c) applying a randomization algorithm to each of the one or more control areas;
d) creating a Fresnel fold map of the geographical area; and e) applying a relative standard deviation algorithm to the Fresnel fold map to confirm if the randomization algorithm has created an even distribution of data.
The claimed process simply describes series of steps for a method, based on selecting, determining, applying and creating. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed with pen and paper and is an idea of itself. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mental processes” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites no additional limitations.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and have no additional elements present in the claims. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 1 and 18.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-17 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims include the additional elements of one or more sources and one or more receivers, however these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer of organizing and comparing data as discussed with respect to the independent claims above. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand (US 20210055437 A1) in view of Christie (US 20040215396 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Strand teaches a method of designing seismic surveys for a geographical area using controlled randomization, said method comprising the steps of: a) selecting the geographical area to be surveyed. (Abstract, Paragraphs 2, 27, Claim 1)
Strand also teaches b) determining placement for one or more control areas, wherein each control area comprises a plurality of stations, within the geographical area. (Paragraphs 104-105, 53, Figs.17-18, Claim 1)
Strand also teaches c) applying a randomization algorithm to each of the one or more control areas. (Paragraph 98)
Strand also teaches d) creating a Fresnel fold map of the geographical area. (Paragraph 105, Claims 4-5 Figs.15D, 18)
Strand also teaches applying an algorithm to the Fresnel fold map. (Paragraph 98)
Strand does not explicitly teach e) applying a relative standard deviation algorithm to the Fresnel fold map to confirm if the randomization algorithm has created an even distribution of data.
Christie teaches e) applying a relative standard deviation algorithm to the Fresnel fold map to confirm if the randomization algorithm has created an even distribution of data. (Paragraphs 81, 89, Claim 18)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Strand to incorporate e) applying a relative standard deviation algorithm to the Fresnel fold map to confirm if the randomization algorithm has created an even distribution of data in order to alert a user if a measure is over a pre-set level thus avoiding unwanted or erroneous data.
Regarding claim 2, Strand teaches wherein the station comprises one or more sources. (Paragraphs 28, 31, Fig.1A)
Regarding claim 3, Strand teaches wherein the station comprises one or more receivers. (Paragraphs 29, 31, 34, Fig.1A)
Regarding claim 4, Strand teaches wherein each control area comprises a control area type selected from the group consisting of: a salvo comprising a line of receivers between two source lines or a line of sources between two receiver lines; a maximum permitted gap between sources or receivers; a Fresnel Zone distance comprising a horizontal resolution of seismic surveys at a specific depth; a station interval comprising an interval between consecutive sources and receivers. (Paragraphs 47, 51, 75, 28-29, 30-31, Fig.1B)
Regarding claim 5, Strand teaches wherein the control area type comprises a plurality of salvos. (Paragraphs 30, 46-47, 51)
Regarding claim 6, Strand teaches wherein the geographical area comprises one control area type. (Paragraphs 47, 49, 30)
Regarding claim 7, Strand teaches wherein the geographical area comprises a plurality of control area types. (Paragraphs 47, 49, 30)
Regarding claim 14, Strand teaches wherein the method is applied to one geographical area before installing the sources and receivers. (Paragraphs 55, 89, 104)
Regarding claim 15, Strand teaches wherein the method is applied to one geographical area where stations have been installed previously to determine the distribution of data collection points from the receivers and sources. (Paragraphs 31, 44)
Regarding claim 17, Strand teaches wherein the method is applied to any type of seismic geometry including 2D, 3D, 4D, orthogonal, slant, megabin, linear, sinusoidal, zig-zag, areal, swath. (Paragraphs 55, 70)
Regarding claim 18, Strand teaches a method of designing seismic surveys for a geographical area using controlled randomization, said method comprising the steps of: a) selecting the geographical area to be surveyed. (Abstract, Paragraphs 2, 27, Claim 1)
Strand also teaches b) determining placement for one or more control areas, wherein each control area comprises a plurality of stations, within the geographical area. (Paragraphs 104-105, 53, Figs.17-18, Claim 1)
Strand also teaches c) applying a randomization algorithm to each of the one or more control areas. (Paragraph 98)
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand in view of Christie and Mensch (US 20200072998 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Strand does not explicitly teach wherein the randomization algorithm is a random number generator function.
Mensch teaches wherein the randomization algorithm is a random number generator function. (Paragraphs 55, 58, Fig.7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Strand to incorporate wherein the randomization algorithm is a random number generator function as taught by Mensch in order to produce a sequence that is a uniform random low-discrepancy sequence.
Regarding claim 9, Strand does not explicitly teach wherein the randomization algorithm is applied a single time to the control area.
Mensch teaches wherein the randomization algorithm is applied a single time to the control area. (Paragraphs 54-60, Fig.7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Strand to incorporate wherein the randomization algorithm is applied a single time to the control area as taught by Mensch in order to produce a sequence that is a uniform random low-discrepancy sequence.
Regarding claim 10, Strand does not explicitly teach wherein the randomization algorithm is applied multiple times in sequence to the control area to determine a satisfactory distribution of stations.
Mensch teaches wherein the randomization algorithm is applied multiple times in sequence to the control area to determine a satisfactory distribution of stations. (Paragraphs 60, 71, 73 Fig.7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Strand to incorporate wherein the randomization algorithm is applied multiple times in sequence to the control area to determine a satisfactory distribution of stations as taught by Mensch in order to produce a sequence that is a uniform random low-discrepancy sequence.
Regarding claim 12, Strand does not explicitly teach wherein the randomization algorithm is repeated to reach a percentage value of sources and receivers.
Mensch teaches wherein the randomization algorithm is repeated to reach a percentage value of sources and receivers. (Paragraph 64, Fig.10A)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Strand to incorporate wherein the randomization algorithm is repeated to reach a percentage value of sources and receivers as taught by Mensch in order to ensure that a solution is found within a reasonable computational time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645