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 .
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 1-16 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A system for evaluating an urban ground stability using traffic noise, the system comprising:
a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise, and acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area; and
a server performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to a frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve according to the passive elastic wave signal or the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave“.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 for claim 9, and apparatus for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type 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 that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the step identified in bold type is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be abstract idea.
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 claim comprises the following additional elements:
a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise, and acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area.
The additional element “a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element “acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area“ represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
The additional elements “a signal measurement unit”; and “a server” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., acquiring signal) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise is disclosed by “Fuji JP2016099183A”, Abstract, [0003], [0009], and [0025]; and “Zhou CN 106443765A”, [0020], [0040], [0041].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8 and 10-16 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al. (JP 2016099183A, hereinafter Fuji) in view of Shin (KR 101820850B1, hereinafter Shin), and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 111596346A, hereinafter Wang).
As to claims 1 and 9, Fuji teaches a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise ([0003], [0009], and [0025] disclose carries out active surface wave exploration, and seismometers measure and analyze surface waves or microtremors which is traffic vibration generated by passing vehicles (i.e., seismometers or signal measurement units measure microtremors or passive elastic wave signals generated by the traffic noise – emphasis added by Examiner), and
acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area ([0009] discloses “carries out active surface wave exploration, which measures and analyzes surface waves generated and propagating when the ground is struck with an impact means, and passive surface wave exploration, which measures and analyzes microtremors, which are a form of surface waves that are constantly generated and propagated from a microtremor source, at the same location and continuously over time (i.e., measuring or acquiring microtremors or refracted waves that are generated and propagated from a microtremor source or artificial transmission source after the ground is struck with an impact means, at the same location or in an exploration area and continuously over time – emphasis added by Examiner)”); and
performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique according to the passive elastic wave signal or the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave ([0002] and [0010] disclose surface wave exploration, a type of elastic wave exploration, is an exploration method that estimates the
S-wave velocity layer structure; and the hybrid surface wave dispersion curve is subjected to inversion analysis to obtain a one-dimensional S-wave velocity structure).
Fuji does not explicitly teach performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to a frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve according to the passive elastic wave signal or the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave.
Shin teaches performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to a frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve according to the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave ([0004] and [0009] disclose full waveform inversion is a method of finding the layer velocity structure through iterative calculations using elastic wave data; and a seismic imaging device uses repeated application of direct waveform inversion to image the underground structure of a measurement target area according to an aspect includes a waveform inversion unit that updates a reference velocity model by moving through frequency bands in a set order using a virtual scattering source and parameter perturbation derived from an updated reference wavefield, and updates the reference velocity model) or the passive elastic wave signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Shin into Fuji for the purpose of using repeated application of direct waveform inversion to image an underground structure of a measurement target area in order to model the underground structures by moving a frequency band and updating a velocity model of each frequency band. This combination would improve in updating a reference velocity model by moving through frequency bands in a set order using a virtual scattering source and parameter perturbation derived from an updated reference wavefield so that the underground structure from the updated reference velocity model can be accurately imaged.
The combination of Fuji and Shin does not explicitly teach a server performing an inversion.
Wang teaches a server performing an inversion ([0005], [0132] discloses “an elastic wave velocity inversion device that employs an elastic wave regularized velocity inversion model based on smooth and non-smooth constraint terms. The device can be a server S1, as shown in Figure 1A.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wang into Fuji in view of Shin for the purpose of accurately inverting an elastic wave velocity by comprehensively considering an influence of smooth and non-smooth constraints on an inversion velocity in order to correctly image seismic data with complex structures or large lateral velocity variations, and effectively correct subsurface image distortion caused by steeply dipping strata and velocity variations. This combination would improve in an accuracy of seismic data interpretation, effectively guiding actual production, and improving production efficiency.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji, Shin, and Wang, and in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110568495A, hereinafter Zhang).
As to claims 8 and 16, the combination of Fuji, Shin, and Wang teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 9, respectively.
The combination of Fuji, Shin, and Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique is a particle swarm optimization technique.
Zhang teaches wherein the surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique is a particle swarm optimization technique ([0005] discloses Rayleigh wave dispersion curve inversion determines an inversion objective function, and once the objective function is determined, inversion can be performed by combining quasi-linear fully nonlinear inversion methods such as particle swarm optimization algorithm, genetic algorithm, etc. or damped least squares method; [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhang into Fuji in view of Shin and Wang for the purpose of extracting and inverting measured dispersion curves from measured seismic records using Rayleigh wave exploration in order to obtain a shear wave velocity structure of the underground geological medium. This combination would improve in the accuracy of the inversion by including higher-order dispersion curves in the inversion.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 2-7, and 10-15, the most pertinent prior arts are “Fuji JP 2016099183A”, “Shin KR 101820850 B1”, “Wang CN 111596346A”, and “Zhang CN 110568495A”, and “Zhou CN 106443765A.
As to claims 2 and 10, Fuji teaches a dispersion curve generation unit generating the frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve from the passive elastic wave signal or the S-wave velocity model (Fuji, [0007], [0010], [0012]),
an inversion performing unit performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to the generated frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve (Fuji, [0010], [0018]), and
a verification unit verifying the accuracy of the surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique (Fuji, [0008], [0010], [0018]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “an artificial synthetic model generation unit generating a horizontal 2-layer S-wave velocity model which is an artificial synthesis model from the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave by using a refraction method” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3-7 and 11-15 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 2 and 10.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 2-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Ostrander US 5083297A” teaches “A method for improving the seismic resolution of geologic structures is disclosed. Refracted wave arrivals are gathered into common midpoint trace gathers. Data representations originating inside a critical offset distance are muted, and the remaining data is tau-P summed and projected into zero source-to-receiver offset. Constant velocity stacks can then be displayed. A plurality of common midpoint trace gathers can be used to generate multiple panels of tau-P sums. Portions of several of these panels can be combined to provide a complete image of the subsurface reactors. A near-surface velocity model can then be designed, to provide a solution to near-surface statics in seismic traces.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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, Catherine T 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857