DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/10/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1- 5, 9-17 and 21-24 have been amended. Regarding Claims 6-8 and 18-20: cancelled.
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- 5, 9-17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1- 5, 9-17 and 21-24 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-5 and 9-12 fall within category of process; each of claims 13-17 and 21-24 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9 and 11-12
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of full-wavefield inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a velocity model for a subsurface region.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A computer-implemented method for full-wavefield inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a velocity model for a subsurface region, comprising:
a) receiving seismic data for the subsurface region;
b) pre-processing the received seismic data;
c) generating a simple starting model;
d) generating synthetic seismic data using full-waveform inversion (FWI) based on the starting model;
e) computing an objective function by comparing the synthetic seismic data with pre-processed observed data;
f) computing a gradient of the objective function with respect to subsurface model parameters;
g) if one or more defined stopping parameters are not met, then updating the starting model with the gradient, a random perturbation term, and a regularization term and going back to step d); or
h) if the one or more defined stopping parameters are met, then outputting a final velocity model for the subsurface region.
PNG
media_image1.png
226
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
476
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
340
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
598
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The limitations above (excepts bold portion) represent mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the limitations(excepts bold portion) fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the steps d-g are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) . Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “a) receiving seismic data for the subsurface region; b) pre-processing the received seismic data;” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea..
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-12
Dependent claims 2-5, 9 and 11-12 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-5, 9 and 11-12 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-5 and 9: a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) . Therefore, the limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations of Claims 11-12: post solution activity, these additional elements appear to only add post solution activity which is well understood, routine and conventional activity and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) .
Regarding Claim 10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea of full-wavefield inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a velocity model for a subsurface region.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following limitations:
PNG
media_image5.png
254
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
648
730
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
218
688
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
596
726
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
354
700
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
142
680
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The limitations above represent mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 10 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “a) receiving seismic data for the subsurface region; b) pre-processing the received seismic data;” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, 2nd additional element is “Initiating a seismic source at multiple locations ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic seismic data collection system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 10 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea..
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Regarding Claims 13-17 and 21-24
Claims 13-17 and 21-24 contains language similar to claims 1-5, 9 -12 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 13-17 and 21-24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Furthermore, Claims 13-17 and 21-24, recites additional element is “ a system, aa memory in communication with a processor, wherein computer-executable instructions stored on the memory when executed by the processor cause the processor to: ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, 10, 13, 22, The applicant did not agree with it, see, pages 18-19. Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to an abstract idea; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because limitations of claims, specifically , 1, 10, 13, 22 represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claim1, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 112 and 102 has been considered and withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims1- 5, 9-17 and 21-24 (specifically 1, 10, 13, 22), however there are 101 over the claims.
Krohn et al. (US 2016/0047924) also teaches most of the claim limitations, specifically claims 1 and 13 as figure 4, item 401-409 and Whitemore et al. (US 20210103065) also teaches the most of the claim limitations, specifically claims 1 and 13 as figure 6, item 601-609
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Walter et al. (US 20140222345) disclose seismic velocity models. At least some of the illustrative embodiments are methods including: refining a seismic velocity model by correlating a predicted log to a measured log; creating a pseudo-surface pick location in a modeled subsurface horizon based on the correlating; modifying at least a portion of a seismic velocity model based on the pseudo-surface pick location; recalculating the modeled subsurface horizon based on the seismic velocity model, thereby creating a modified surface; and plotting the modified surface on a display device of a computer system.
b) Sun et al. (US 20220317325) disclose a seismic data set and a seismic wave propagation velocity model and approximating the seismic wave propagation velocity model as a plurality of layers each bounded by a first and second bounding depth.
c) Smith et al. (US 20220187493) disclose, generating synthetic logs and calibrating existing velocity models can be performed using reduced-cost substitutes in the form of drilling parameters, drilling parameters and logging while drilling logs, or drilling parameters and logging while drilling logs and near-bit vibrations. Moreover, the implementations disclosed herein increase the robustness of the mechanical property estimates during inefficient or suboptimal drilling when drilling measurements are dominated by noise from drilling dysfunctions.
d)Nojadeh et al. ( US 20210372258) disclose show synthetically modeled images of ground truth subsurface velocity, and subsurface images provided by processing surface and SWD data. Specifically, FIG. 4A shows a synthetic velocity model representative of the well-known McMurray Formation, located in Alberta. FIG. 4B shows a surface seismic image over the model of FIG. 4A (i.e., an image provided by processing surface seismic data for the velocity model of FIG. 4A). FIG. 5A shows the velocity model of FIG. 4A, overlaid with a schematic representation of a drilling system for seismic-while-drilling acquisition according to systems and methods disclosed herein. FIG. 5B further shows a subsurface image provided by processing SWD data for the velocity model of FIG. 4A.
e) Wang et al. ( US 20170131418) disclose ; calculating with a computing device an updated velocity model mi+1 based on a previous velocity model mi and a step length; and producing the image of the subsurface based on the recorded wave fields D and the updated velocity model mi+1. The predicted wave fields Pmi are predicted by the previous velocity model mi.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights