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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/03/2023 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the IDS, submitted on 08/03/2023, have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: a. receiving, at a computer processor, a seismic image; b. analyzing the seismic image to determine frequency content and vertical seismic resolution; c. performing structural oriented filtering to generate a filtered seismic volume; d. performing spectral enhancement of the filtered seismic volume using the determined frequency content and vertical seismic resolution to generate at least three frequency-dependent seismic volumes; e. calculating covariance of the at least three frequency-dependent seismic volumes to generate at least three covariance matrices; f. combining the at least three covariance matrices to create a multispectral variance volume; and g. displaying the multispectral variance volume on a graphical display. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 5 and 9.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 5 is an apparatus claim, and claim 9 is a computer program product claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “analyzing the seismic image to determine frequency content and vertical seismic resolution…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶18, ¶¶27-28, of the instant specification), “performing structural oriented filtering to generate a filtered seismic volume…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶18, ¶¶28-29, of the instant specification), “calculating covariance of the at least three frequency-dependent seismic volumes to generate at least three covariance matrices…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶31-32, of the instant specification), and “combining the at least three covariance matrices to create a multispectral variance volume…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶31-32, of the instant specification), each of which encompasses mental concepts.
For example, at least each of the recited process steps comprising a judicial exception may be considered a mental process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, upon receipt of a seismic image, a human user would be capable of analyzing the seismic image to determine frequency content and vertical seismic resolution, and then calculating/performing structural oriented filtering to generate a filtered seismic volume, obtaining the generated at least three frequency-dependent seismic volumes, and then calculating covariance of the at least three frequency-dependent seismic volumes to generate at least three covariance matrices, and combining the at least three covariance matrices to create a multispectral variance volume, by pen and paper. While such calculations by pen and paper may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 5 and 9 recite similar abstract ideas.
In the alternative, each of the recited judicial exceptions may also be considered a mathematical process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a generic conventional computer/computer processor. For example, at least the steps of “analyzing,” “performing,” “calculating,” and “combining” are performed by a computer (“methods and systems of the present disclosure may be implemented by a system and/or in a system, such as a system 10 shown in FIG. 1. The system 10 may include one or more of a processor 11, an interface 12 (e.g., bus, wireless interface), an electronic storage 13, a graphical display 14, and/or other components. The processor 11 will receive a seismic image derived from a seismic dataset and will produce a multispectral variance volume to be used for interpretation of the seismic image.” and “All these processes are performed by the computer and were automated using scripts.” FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶17-26, ¶31, of the instant specification).
Claim 1 additionally recites the claim limitation of “performing spectral enhancement of the filtered seismic volume using the determined frequency content and vertical seismic resolution to generate at least three frequency-dependent seismic volumes…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶30, of the instant specification), which comprises the judicial exception of a mathematical process requiring specific mathematical calculations (The “Constant Bandwidth Enhancement” described in ¶30 of the instant specification.) to perform the spectral enhancement. Claims 5 and 9 recite analogous judicial exceptions.
In claim 1, the steps of: “analyzing,” “performing,” “calculating,” and “combining” each fall within at least the mental concepts, and/or in the alternative, mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas; and the step of “performing” falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claims 5 and 9 recite similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “analyzing,” “performing,” “performing,” “calculating,” and “combining” are recited as being performed by a computer (FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶17-26, ¶31, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“processor”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements (equipment) of “a computer processor,” and “a graphical display” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶17-26, ¶31, of the instant specification). Similarly, claims 5 and 9 recite “one or more processors,” “memory,” and “one or more programs” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶17-26, ¶31, of the instant specification). Claim 1 additionally recites data comprising “a seismic image” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶17-26, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). Claim 1 further recites the process step of “displaying the multispectral variance volume on a graphical display.” However, the step of “displaying the multispectral variance volume on a graphical display” comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 5 and 9 recite analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 9, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the multispectral variance volume is displayed on the graphical display.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 5, 10). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 9, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 9, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12, 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.
NOTE: Currently there are no outstanding prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 11,119,234 B1, to Ji et al., discloses a method for generating a geophysical image of a subsurface region which includes defining a computational sub-volume for the geophysical image including a predetermined number of seismic traces of a plurality of seismic traces and a predetermined number of samples per each one of the plurality of seismic traces, generating a data matrix corresponding to a first sub-volume of the subsurface region based on the defined computational sub-volume, the data matrix comprising the predetermined number of samples for the predetermined number of traces of a portion of a seismic dataset corresponding to the first sub-volume.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Shelby Turner can be reached on (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.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857