TEDDETAILED 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 .
The amendment filed on November 7, 2025 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, “a total number of values of each of the plurality of frequency-domain representations” (lines 3-4) is not clear. Examiner reads the limitation as -- the total number of frequency-domain values – (see specification, page 15, lines 20-21).
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 1-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “determining an isochronous surface of the geological formation” (mental process), “determining an intersection point between each of a plurality of seismic traces and the isochronous surface” (mental process), “selecting an interval of pixels of each of the plurality of seismic traces, said interval of pixels being centered on the intersection point” (mental process), “converting to frequency-domain the values of each interval of pixels, thereby obtaining a plurality of frequency-domain representations of the isochronous surface associated with respective analysis frequencies” (mathematical concept), “computing a histogram of the values of each of a plurality of frequency-domain representations of the isochronous surface” (mathematical concept), “selecting a reference frequency-domain representation of the isochronous surface based on the computed histograms” (mental process), “performing an action on the geological formation resulting from an analysis of the geological formation, said analysis depending on the selected reference frequency-domain representation of the isochronous surface” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (computer) for performing the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 12, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor, computer system) for performing the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 12 are patent illegible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-9, 11, and 12 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method implemented by a computer for processing a seismic image comprising seismic traces obtained from seismic measurements performed on a geological formation comprising
converting to frequency-domain the values of each interval of pixels, thereby obtaining a plurality of frequency-domain representations of the isochronous surface associated to-with respective analysis frequencies,
selecting a reference frequency-domain representation of the isochronous surface based on the computed histograms (claim 1) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 7, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), Applicants argue “Applicant has amended claim 4 to address the concerns raised in the Office Action. Withdrawal of the rejection under Section 112 is warranted.”
Examiner’s position is that claim 4 is unclear. As discussed above, examiner reads the limitation in light of the specification as -- the total number of frequency-domain values – (see specification, page 15, lines 20-21).
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “[a]mended claim 1 recites the processing of a seismic image comprising seismic traces obtained from seismic measurements performed on a geological formation, as well as the performance of an action on the geological formation resulting from an analysis of the geological formation. The analysis "depend[s] on the selected reference frequency-domain representation of the isochronous surface." Considered as a whole, the subject matter claimed in amended claim 1 implements a technical, industrial process in regard to both its input (seismic measurements on a geological formation) and output (an action on the geological formation).
Examiner’s position is that “performing an action on the geological formation resulting from an analysis of the geological formation, said analysis depending on the selected reference frequency-domain representation of the isochronous surface” is a mental process in light of the specification. The limitation is supported by the specification, on page 15, lines 4-9. The passage discloses “[t]he reference frequency-domain representation may then be displayed, at least initially, to a human interpreter for analyzing the geological formation.” Thus, “performing an action on the geological formation” in light of the specification is an action of “analyzing the geological formation”. This is an abstract step directed to a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 is patent illegible under 35 USC 101.
Applicants further argue “[i]n such context, the steps of determining an isochronous surface, determining an intersection point, selecting an interval, converting to frequency-domain, computing a histogram and selecting a reference frequency-domain representation are not properly consigned to mere mental process and/or mathematical manipulation, but rather correspond to implementation steps contributing to the analysis and actual manipulation of the geological formation (e.g., measuring, correcting, exploiting) which involves actual contact with the geological formation and impact on the geological formation.”
Examiner’s position is that the analysis of the geological formation is directed to an abstract idea. (mental process). It is noted that manipulation of the geological formation (e.g., measuring, correcting, exploiting) is not recited in the claims.
Applicants further argue “[s]hould aspects of the claimed invention be considered an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the features in amended claim 1 confirm that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. The subject matter claimed in amended claim 1 includes meaningful limitations and involves practical steps, such that claim 1 recites patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101.”
Examiner’s position has been discussed above. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A, prong 1) without being integrated into a practical application (step 2A, prong 2), and the claims do not include elements that are significantly more (step 2B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Monsen et al. (US 2008/0140319) discloses a method implemented by a computer for processing a seismic image comprising seismic traces obtained from seismic measurements performed on a geological formation, said method comprising:
determining an isochronous surface of the geological formation (paragraph 0069, lines 9-11);
computing a histogram of the values of each of a plurality of frequency- domain representations of the isochronous surface (Figs. 11b, 12; paragraphs 0058, 0059).
However, Monsen et al. does not disclose
converting to frequency-domain the values of each interval of pixels, thereby obtaining a plurality of frequency-domain representations of the isochronous surface associated to-with respective analysis frequencies,
selecting a reference frequency-domain representation of the isochronous surface based on the computed histograms.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 30, 2026