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 .
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1, a method) or a machine (claim 11, a system), which are statutory categories.
2.1. However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship/mental process. The limitations include:
b. measuring, using an airborne receiver, a secondary controlled electromagnetic field to generate controlled field data, the secondary controlled electromagnetic field resulting from electrical currents induced in the ground formation by the primary controlled electromagnetic field;
c. measuring, using the airborne receiver, a magnetic component of a natural electromagnetic field at an above-ground position to generate first natural field data;
d. measuring, using a ground receiver at a ground station, telluric electrical currents induced by the natural electromagnetic field and/or a magnetic component of the natural electromagnetic field at a ground position to generate second natural field data;
e. merging the first natural field data and the second natural field data into combined natural field data; f. extracting from the combined natural field data off-time natural field data recorded during the off times; and
g. generating geophysical survey data based on the controlled field data and the off-time natural field data.
These steps collectively amount to gathering information, organizing or manipulating the information, and producing an output based on the information, which are fundamental data processing activities that fall within the categories of mental processes and mathematical/data analysis concepts, even when performed with the aid of instruments. See Electric Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Although the claims recite physical components such as an airborne electromagnetic transmitter, airborne receiver, and ground receiver, these elements are used merely as data sources for collecting information. The claims do not recite any improvement the operation of the electromagnetic transmitters, receivers, or measurement hardware themselves, nor do they recite any new physical interaction with the ground formation beyond conventional electromagnetic surveying.
Further, the steps of “merging”, “extracting”. And generating geophysical survey data” are recited at a high level of generality and describe results-oriented data processing without specifying any particular algorithm, inversion technique, signal processing method, or physical transformation of matter. The claimed use of “off-time” data merely represents a selection of data based on timing, which is an abstract data filtering operation rather than a technological improvement.
Thus, the claims merely use the abstract idea in conjunction with generic measurement activities and do not effect a transformation or improvement in a technical field sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d); Electric Group.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “airborne time- domain electromagnetic transmitter”, “measurement of controlled and natural electromagnetic fields”, “use of a ground station to measure telluric currents” and “synchronization and processing of acquired data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of geophysical electromagnetic surveying. The specification itself acknowledges that airborne EM systems, natural-field EM measurements, telluric current measurements, and off-time data acquisition are known techniques (see for example original specification ¶ [0002]). The claims merely combine known data sources and apply conventional data processing steps to them.
Importantly, the claims do not recite any unconventional hardware arrangement, any new signal acquisition mechanism, or any specific technical processing that improves measurement accuracy, noise suppression, or computational efficiency. Instead, the claims broadly recite the desired outcome of “generating geophysical survey data”, which is insufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite additional physical components such as airborne receiver, induction coils, and associated measurement hardware. However, these additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application. The recited hardware components merely perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of detecting electromagnetic fields and generating corresponding measurement data. The claims do not recite any improvement to the structure or operation of the airborne receiver, induction coils, or measurement instrumentation itself, nor do they require any non-conventional arrangement or technological modification of those components. Instead, the hardware is used as a tool to obtain data that is then processed according to the recited data manipulation steps, which constitute the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application
Dependent claims 12-20 recite additional physical components such as airborne receiver, induction coils, and associated measurement hardware. However, these additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application. The recited hardware components merely perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of detecting electromagnetic fields and generating corresponding measurement data. The claims do not recite any improvement to the structure or operation of the airborne receiver, induction coils, or measurement instrumentation itself, nor do they require any non-conventional arrangement or technological modification of those components. Instead, the hardware is used as a tool to obtain data that is then processed according to the recited data manipulation steps, which constitute the abstract idea.
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1-20 distinguish over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, The closest prior art of record xu et al. (Pub. No. US
20200110185) discloses passive electroseismic and siesmoelectric surveying systems and broadly teaches combining survey data from multiple geophysical techniques, including passive electroseismic, controlled-sourceelectromagnetic magnetotelluric, seismic, gravity, and other survey methods (see Abstract, ¶¶ [0002]-[0006] and [0158]-[0165]). xu et al. supports multi-survey data fusion at an interpretation level and generation of survey results from combined datasets (see ¶¶ [0166]-[0175]). However, xu et al. fails to anticipate or render obvious a method of geophysical surveying of a ground formation, the method including the steps of: g. generating geophysical survey data based on the controlled field data and the off-time natural field data, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 11, The closest prior art of record xu et al. (Pub. No. US
20200110185) discloses passive electroseismic and siesmoelectric surveying systems and broadly teaches combining survey data from multiple geophysical techniques, including passive electroseismic, controlled-sourceelectromagnetic magnetotelluric, seismic, gravity, and other survey methods (see Abstract, ¶¶ [0002]-[0006] and [0158]-[0165]). xu et al. supports multi-survey data fusion at an interpretation level and generation of survey results from combined datasets (see ¶¶ [0166]-[0175]). However, xu et al. fails to anticipate or render obvious a geophysical surveying assembly, comprising: at least one processor communicatively coupled to the assembly receiver to receive the magnetic field data, the at least one processor operable to: iv. generate geophysical survey data based on the controlled field data and the off-time natural field data, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Miles et al. [‘612] discloses an airborne electromagnetic surveying system employing a controlled electromagnetic source and airborne receivers to measure secondary electromagnetic responses induced in subsurface, with subsequent processing to characterize ground conductivity or resistivity (see Abstract, ¶¶ [0006] and [0040]-[0045]). Miles et al. also teaches conventional time-domain and /or frequency-domain electromagnetic acquisition, including transmitter waveform control, receiver signal conditioning, and processing of measured electromagnetic responses to generate geophysical survey outputs (see ¶¶ [0006] and [0052]-[0056]). However, Miles et al. to anticipate or render obvious a geophysical surveying assembly, comprising: at least one processor communicatively coupled to the assembly receiver to receive the magnetic field data, the at least one processor operable to: iii. extract, from the first natural field data, off-time natural field data recorded during the off times; and iv. generate geophysical survey data based on the controlled field data and the off-time natural field data, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Smith [‘505] discloses an electromagnetic geophysical surveying technique in which electromagnetic fields are transmitted and measured to infer subsurface characteristics, including arrangements for transmitters, receivers, and processing system (see Abstract and ¶¶ [0027]-[0040]). Smith also teaches known approaches for separating primary and secondary electromagnetic fields and for generating data products based on measured electromagnetic response (see ¶¶ [0041]-[0060]). However, Smith fails to anticipate or render obvious a geophysical surveying assembly, comprising: at least one processor communicatively coupled to the assembly receiver to receive the magnetic field data, the at least one processor operable to: iii. extract, from the first natural field data, off-time natural field data recorded during the off times; and iv. generate geophysical survey data based on the controlled field data and the off-time natural field data, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857