DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 15 has been canceled.
Claims 1-14 have been amended.
Claims 16-21 are new.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
References
D1: US20150168576 Craft et al. June 18, 2015
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101 that 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 1-13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 21, the phrase "computer-readable storage media" does not fit into one of the four statutory categories. A correction of the phrase to read a "non-transitory, computer-readable media" would overcome this rejection.
With regards to claims 1-13 and 16-21, Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitation which is considered to be an abstract idea:
“processing at least a portion of the seismic survey data from a plurality of different clock drift processors”. The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the category of a mental process concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); MPEP 2106.04a2 III. Which when given its BRI is interpreted to be a judgement or observation as to assessing which clock drift processor(s) to utilize.
Step 2a-Prong 2- The recitation of the additional element(s) of "receiving seismic survey data" which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g) - selecting a particular data source (Electric Power Group).
Therefore, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional element(s) is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. The additional element does not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reason as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. Additionally, the "receiving" step is indicative of well-understood, routine and conventional activity found by the courts as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d) II, particularly "[r]eceiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional element of claim 1 does not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, claims 1-13 and 16-21 are found to be directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.
With regards to claims 1 and 14, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a receiving seismic survey data of a subsurface environment (Title) from a seismic survey utilizing water bed (Title: ocean bottom) receivers, wherein each of the receivers comprises a clock (Abstract; ¶ 0028); assessing one or more clock calibration criteria (¶ 0028: linear, quadratic, bulk); based on the assessing, selecting a clock drift processor (abstract) for processing at least a portion of the seismic survey data from a plurality of different clock drift processors (Abstract; ¶¶ 0008, 0009, 0012, 0028); using at least the clock drift processor, performing a simultaneous inversion (¶ 0012) for values of model-based (¶ 0018) parameters; and using at least a portion of the values, generating processed seismic survey data that represents one or more geological interfaces (¶ 0003: strata) in the subsurface environment.
With regards to claim 2, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of ocean bottom nodes (Title, FIG. 1).
With regards to claim 3, the D1 reference discloses the model-based parameters (¶ 0012) comprise a water velocity (¶¶ 0007-0010) parameter and a clock (¶¶ 0008-0009) parameter.
With regards to claim 4, the D1 reference discloses the model-based parameters (¶ 0012) comprise a water velocity (¶¶ 0007-0010) parameter, a clock (¶¶ 0008-0009) parameter, and a source position parameter (¶ 0009).
With regards to claim 5, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a coordinate system (¶¶ 0007-0008: GPS; ¶ 0030: X, Y, and Z)) related to a vessel (gun boat 10) that moves one or more seismic sources (12).
With regards to claim 6, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a matrix (¶ 0037) and inversion (¶¶ 0036-0042).
With regards to claims 7-9, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a different clock drift processors (¶¶ 0008, 0028: linear, quadratic, bulk).
With regards to claim 10, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a clock calibration criteria comprise at least one of a deployment criterion and a retrieval criterion (¶ 0008).
With regards to claim 11, the D1 reference discloses the receivers is at a depth below an air-water interface greater than approximately 100 meters (¶¶ 0038, 0056).
With regards to claim 12, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of lateral and vertical position of a receiver, lateral and vertical position of groups of seismic sources, clock drift of each receiver and temporal changes in acoustic velocity of water between a seismic source and a receiver (¶¶ 0013, 0007-0008, 0030).
With regards to claim 13, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of linearized inversion (¶¶ 0030, 0008).
With regards to claim 16, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of ocean bottom cables (FIG. 1).
With regards to claims 17-19, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a receiver and source position parameters (¶ 0030).
With regards to claim 20, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of GPS position data (¶ 0028).
With regards to claim 21, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a computer (¶ 0055).
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Isam Alsomiri, can be reached on 571-272-6970.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645