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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 9/8/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining an angle of obliquity and a structural trend from a geological cross section (for example, Claim 5 recites an equation as part of the mathematical algorithm). The Claims also recite the performance of a mental activity step as part of the algorithm (see Claim 4); a combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea [See 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determination of the angle of obliquity and the structural trend is not used in any manner that would amount to an improvement to the underlying drilling operation, as no specific drilling adjustments are performed relative to the determinations of the mathematical algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a cross section must necessarily be received and measured in the performance of the algorithm – these steps amount to the recitation of extra-solution data gathering. The recited computer, computer-readable medium, instructions, and processors amounts to the recitation of general-purpose computer elements for implementing the algorithm using a general-purpose computer and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). The step of “adjusting drilling operations” by “modifying drilling parameters” is generic/non-specific and amounts to the recitation to merely “use” the algorithm result, which does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) – “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: … iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use[.]”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The Claims are rejected under 35 USC 101. However, were these rejections to be overcome, the following would be a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, Stewart, Vertical exaggeration of reflection seismic data in geoscience publications 2006-2010, Elsevier, 2011; Stewart, Interpretation validation on vertically exaggerated reflection seismic sections, Elsevier, 2012; US 20140185413 A1; US 4357660 A; US 20210247534 A1; and Alcalde et al., Fault interpretation in seismic reflection data: an experiment analysing the impact of conceptual model anchoring and vertical exaggeration, Solid Earth, 2019; either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a method including: measuring, using the cross section, an angle of inclination of a fault; correcting the aspect ratio of the depth section for the vertical exaggeration to obtain an accurate measurement of fault inclination in the cross section; determining, for the depth section, a structural style and an expected true fault inclination; and determining, using the expected true fault inclination compared with the angle of inclination of the fault, an angle of obliquity and a structural trend, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
476
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image2.png
296
863
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
536
867
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
311
865
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The step of “adjusting drilling operations” by “modifying drilling parameters” is generic/non-specific and amounts to the recitation to merely “use” the algorithm result, which does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) – “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: … iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use[.]”).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
397
863
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
230
866
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. "A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
292
859
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determination of the angle of obliquity and the structural trend is not used in any manner that would amount to an improvement to the underlying drilling operation, as no specific drilling adjustments are performed relative to the determinations of the mathematical algorithm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stewart, Interpretation validation on vertically exaggerated reflection seismic sections, Elsevier, 2012 – (See Table 1,
PNG
media_image8.png
38
223
media_image8.png
Greyscale
)
Alcalde et al., Fault interpretation in seismic reflection data: an experiment analysing the impact of conceptual model anchoring and vertical exaggeration, Solid Earth, 2019
Kai et al., Research and application of a new seismic data conversion method based on radian operation, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2021
Zongjie, Fault recognition in a fractured-vuggy reservoir, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2021
Zuo et al., A new method of fault identification based on stratigraphic inclination coherence analysis in high steep formation area, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2020
US 20140185413 A1 – DIP SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES
US 20210247534 A1 – SEISMIC DATA INTERPRETATION SYSTEM
US 20200158898 A1 – Analogue Facilitated Seismic Data Interpretation System
US 20150134255 A1 – STRATIGRAPHIC AND STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION OF DEVIATED AND HORIZONTAL WELLBORES
US 20150073715 A1 – SEISMIC SURVEY ANALYSIS
US 20110118985 A1 – CONSISTENT DIP ESTIMATION FOR SEISMIC IMAGING
US 4357660 A – Formation Dip And Azimuth Processing Technique
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857