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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, the amendments as filed do not overcome the 101 rejection. For example, the amendments “determining an initial velocity model representative of a subsurface region of interest based on information of the subsurface region of interest; perturbing the initial velocity model to form a plurality of velocity models; executing a forward model to simulate a plurality of seismic data sets from the plurality of velocity models; transforming, via mitigation of amplitude variations, each of the seismic data sets of the plurality of seismic data sets to form a plurality of training transformed seismic data sets, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in each of the training transformed seismic data sets in the plurality of training transformed seismic data sets;.” Are considered to be mental/mathematical concepts or extra solution activity. The amendment of “training a machine-learned model using the plurality of velocity models and the plurality of training transformed seismic data sets, wherein the machine-learned model is configured to accept transformed seismic data,” although not abstract, fails to turn the claim into a practical application. It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the rejection.
To overcome the 101 rejection, examiner suggest amending Claim 1 with Claim 5. The addition of Claim 5 adds practicability to Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 18-19, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13 and 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of 10/17/2025 has been withdrawn.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising: determining an initial velocity model representative of a subsurface region of interest based on information of the subsurface region of interest; perturbing the initial velocity model to form a plurality of velocity models; executing a forward model to simulate a plurality of seismic data sets from the plurality of velocity models; transforming, via mitigation of amplitude variations, each of the seismic data sets of the plurality of seismic data sets to form a plurality of training transformed seismic data sets, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in each of the training transformed seismic data sets in the plurality of training transformed seismic data sets; training a machine-learned model using the plurality of velocity models and the plurality of training transformed seismic data sets, wherein the machine-learned model is configured to accept transformed seismic data; obtaining a seismic data set for a subsurface region of interest; transforming the seismic data set to a transformed seismic data set, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in the transformed seismic data set; processing the transformed seismic data set with the machine-learned model to predict a velocity model for the subsurface region of interest; and determining a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir in the subsurface region of interest using the velocity model.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “transforming the seismic data set to a transformed seismic data set, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in the transformed seismic data set;” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “determining an initial velocity model representative of a subsurface region of interest based on information of the subsurface region of interest; perturbing the initial velocity model to form a plurality of velocity models; processing the transformed seismic data set with a trained machine-learned model to predict a velocity model for the subsurface region of interest; and determining a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir in the subsurface region of interest using the velocity model” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 7 and 13.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 13: a computer, computer processors, non-transitory computer readable medium
The additional element of “a computer, computer processors (generic processor) and a non-transitory computer readable medium are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines. The limitation of “obtaining a seismic data set for a subsurface region of interest,” is considered by MPEP 2106.05(g) as mere data gathering.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13 and 15-20 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
He et al. (US20230029642A1, 2023-02-02) teaches determining an initial velocity model representative of a subsurface region of interest based on information of the subsurface region of interest (Abstract). He further teaches obtaining a seismic data set for the subsurface region of interest; transforming the seismic data set to a transformed seismic data set, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in the transformed seismic data set (Abstract); and determining a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir in the subsurface region of interest using the velocity model [0002].
He, along with all other references, fail to teach, alone or in combination perturbing the initial velocity model to form a plurality of velocity models; executing a forward model to simulate a plurality of seismic data sets from the plurality of velocity models; transforming, via mitigation of amplitude variations, each of the seismic data sets of the plurality of seismic data sets to form a plurality of training transformed seismic data sets, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in each of the training transformed seismic data sets in the plurality of training transformed seismic data sets; training a machine-learned model using the plurality of velocity models and the plurality of training transformed seismic data sets, wherein the machine-learned model is configured to accept transformed seismic data.
It is for this reason, Claim 1, and all of its dependencies, would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 7, Liang teaches obtaining a velocity model (Abstract), enhancing of traveltime data in the transformed data sets [0042], but fails to specifically teach a computer-implemented method of training a machine-learned model, comprising: obtaining a first initial velocity model; perturbing the first initial velocity model to form a first plurality of velocity models; using a forward model to simulate a first plurality of seismic data sets from the first plurality of velocity models; transforming the first plurality of seismic data sets to form a first plurality of transformed seismic data sets, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in each of the transformed seismic data sets in the first plurality of transformed seismic data sets; training a machine-learned model using the first plurality of velocity models and the first plurality of transformed seismic data sets, wherein the machine-learned model is configured to accept transformed seismic data.
Multiple references teach certain limitations of Claim 7, but none of the reference individually nor in combination teach a computer-implemented method of training a machine-learned model, comprising: obtaining a first initial velocity model; perturbing the first initial velocity model to form a first plurality of velocity models; using a forward model to simulate a first plurality of seismic data sets from the first plurality of velocity models; transforming the first plurality of seismic data sets to form a first plurality of transformed seismic data sets, wherein traveltime information is enhanced in each of the transformed seismic data sets in the first plurality of transformed seismic data sets; training a machine-learned model using the first plurality of velocity models and the first plurality of transformed seismic data sets, wherein the machine-learned model is configured to accept transformed seismic data.
It is for this reason, Claim 7 and all of its dependencies are allowed.
Claim 13 includes analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 7, an is, therefore, along with its dependencies, for similar rationale as disclosed above, allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights