DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 18-19 and 21 recite the limitation " the group consisting of”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 18, applicant uses the language “if so, to include the selected dither values in the set of dither values, otherwise not”, however this limitation is ambiguous and leaves the reader confused. It is unclear to what applicant is referring to when reading the limitation “if so, to include the selected dither values in the set of dither values, otherwise not”, thus the claims is left unclear and indefinite to the metes and bounds of the invention. Furthermore, applicant specification is silent to properly describe the terms “if so, to include the selected dither values in the set of dither values, otherwise not” in a clear and definite way for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 16 and 21, applicant uses the language “another computing device”, however this limitation is ambiguous and leaves the reader confused. It is unclear to what applicant is referring to when reading the limitation “another computing device” as the computing device is already claimed previously and no support to describe what entails this another computing device or how it relates or does not relate to the previously claimed computing device, thus the claims is left unclear and indefinite to the metes and bounds of the invention. Furthermore, applicant specification is silent to properly describe the terms “another computing device” in a clear and definite way for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled 03/18/2026 with respect to the 35 USC § 101 Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants amended claim 1 to include a computing device and the function of said computing device, however these limitations as written are just mere manipulation which can be done by pen and paper and furthermore this data manipulation which is not applied does not make the claim eligible with respect to claim 1. As detailed in the office action mailed out on 12/23/2025 the claims are directed to, among other things, computer-implemented methods, and tangible computer-readable medium for generating dither values corresponding to source activations to be performed during a marine seismic survey. The claims are not going into detail to explain how these limitations are improving a functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (Step 2A Prong 2). Nor do the claims explain any additional elements that are more than well understood, routine, conventional activity (Step 2B). As previously mention the claims are merely manipulating the data which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and therefore does not overcome the 101 rejection.
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 1-14 and 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility launder 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
Analysis has been updated based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claims 1, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 (exemplary) recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein.
The claim is directed to a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a manufacture that comprises the limitations of:
accessing a set of nominal shot points corresponding to a set of sources to be used during a portion of the survey;
determining a set of dither values, each dither value in the set specifying a difference between one of the nominal shot points and an actual shot point to be produced by the set of sources during the survey;
wherein determining the set of dither values comprises (1) determining whether selected dither values satisfy at least one constraint chosen from the group consisting of: an absolute dither difference constraint, a non-duplication constraint, and a standard deviation constraint (2) if so, including the selected dither values in the set of dither values, otherwise not;
wherein each of the constraints is based on differences between dither values corresponding to consecutive ones of the nominal shot points, and wherein each such difference comprises a dither difference;
wherein determining whether the selected dither values satisfy the absolute dither difference constraint comprises determining whether each dither difference corresponding to the selected dither values is greater than a threshold dither difference;
wherein determining whether the selected dither values satisfy the non-duplication constraint comprises determining whether, for a given set of discrete ranges of dither difference values, at most a threshold number of dither differences corresponding to the selected dither values falls within any one of the ranges;
wherein determining whether the selected dither values satisfy the standard deviation constraint comprises determining whether the standard deviation of dither differences corresponding to the selected dither values is greater than a threshold standard deviation.
The claimed process simply describes series of steps for a manufacture, based on accessing, determining, and determining whether the selected dither values satisfy. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed with pen and paper and is an idea of itself. These limitations, as drafted, are a manufacture that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mental processes” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations of using a source, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computing device to perform the steps. The computing device in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The computing device is a general-purpose processor (see para [0087, 0088 and 0089] of the specification) that performs general-purpose functions of accessing, determining, and satisfying data. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device. This generic computing device limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and have additional elements present in the claims of a source, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computing device. These additional limitations of a source, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computing device are mere generic implantations of storing and compiling/organizing data which can be performed by pen and paper and falls under enumerated group of “mental processes” and do not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 1, 18-19 and 21.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, 20 and 22-29 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims include the additional elements of geophysical sensors and one sail line however these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer of organizing and comparing data as discussed with respect to the independent claims above. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 16-29 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winnett (WO 2016009270 A1), which is directed to determining source activation moments within each of a series of source firing time interval using Golomb ruler sequences or a non-linear inversion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights