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
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 3/25/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Salman doesn’t disclose or suggest receiving labeled information as a separate input during prediction. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to Salman’s claim 8, the model trains, during a training phase and based at least on the label and the training seismic volume, a machine learning model. Therefore, an input for the label and an input for the seismic data exists. Rejection remains.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. This claim discloses a “Machine computer readable medium” (in line 1) that could be broadly interpreted to include medium such as carrier waves and media distributed over a network (Please see the MPEP 2106 Section IV. Determine Whether the Claimed Invention Complies with 35 U.S.C. 101). This rejection may be overcome by modifying the claim and the specification to recite a non-transitory computer readable medium or tangible computer readable device. Please note that “tangible” by itself will not make the claim statutory. Tangible means perceivable, and a signal can be perceived. In addition, “Non-transitory medium” is not an acceptable substitute terminology because the claim language does not reflect the interrelationship between the program and a computer. The claims should be amended to recite “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 11-12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20190162868 A1-Salman et al (Hereinafter referred to “Salman”)
Regarding claim 1, Salman disclose a method for detecting, by a learning machine, a geobody in a seismic volume (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
receiving a first seismic input tile representing first seismic data from the seismic volume ([0039], wherein the input receiver is configured to obtain the training seismic volume);
receiving a first guide input tile ([0071], a guide input tile is nothing more than patches that provide information to the ML; According to Salman’s claim 8, the model trains, during a training phase and based at least on the label and the training seismic volume, a machine learning model) including
first labels that indicate presence of the geobody in a respective region in the
seismic volume or absence of the geobody in the respective region ([0073], wherein labels are assigned to each patch), and
one or more unlabeled regions that make no indication about presence or absence of the geobody ([0048], wherein if the he assigned label indicates the locations where the known fault(s) intersects the patch, then it would be obvious that the unassigned labels repsresnts no indication about presencr or absence of the geobody) ; and
determining, based on the first seismic input tile and the first guide input tile, a first prediction about geobody presence or absence in the seismic volume ([0036]; According to Salman’s claim 8, the model trains, during a training phase and based at least on the label and the training seismic volume, a machine learning model.).
Regarding claim 2, Salman discloses the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: generating an output tile that graphically illustrates the first prediction (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 8, Salman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first seismic input tile and the first guide input tile are represented in one or more computerized graphical formats ([0023]).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 18.
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20190162868 A1-Salman et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Salman”), in view of US 20230258838 A1-Roy et al (Hereinafter referred toas “Roy”).
Regarding claim 9, Salman fails to disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Salman fails to disclose wherein the first prediction about the geobody in the seismic volume indicates that the geobody is absent from the seismic volume.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Roy discloses wherein the first prediction about the geobody in the seismic volume indicates that the geobody is absent from the seismic volume ([0044], wherein predict presence and/or absence of particular materials (e.g., hydrocarbons) in a subsurface region. For example, seismic attributes may include amplitude attributes (including amplitude variation with angle/offset attributes), time/horizon attributes, frequency attributes, and/or other seismic attributes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Salman to disclose wherein the first prediction about the geobody in the seismic volume indicates that the geobody is absent from the seismic volume as taught by Roy , to provide accurate results, by providing sufficient amount of high quality training data ([0027], Roy).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 13-16, 20 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights