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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 09/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-29 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled 09/23/2025 with respect to the 35 USC § 101 Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants amended claim 1 to include a computer in the preamble however since there is no mention of a computer in the body of the claim, the amended language is not given any patentable weight and does not make the claim eligible with respect to claim 1.
Applicant submits that 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 generally state determining a set of nominal shot points corresponding to a set of sources and determining a set of dither values. Thereafter, the claims broadly state satisfying the absolute dither difference constraint; then satisfying the non-duplication constraint, then satisfying the standard deviation constraint. 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).
Under Step 2A, submits that the claims do not wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed process simply describes series of steps for a manufacture, based on determining, and satisfying. 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.
The claims generally describe “determining a set of nominal shot points corresponding to a set of sources,” and “determining a set of dither values.” The claims do not go into detail to explain specifically how the set of nominal shot points and set of dither values are calculated. The claims disclose satisfying one or more constraints chosen from the group, which is something that can be done with pen and paper. The claims state satisfying the absolute dither difference constraint, satisfying the non-duplication constraint and satisfying the standard deviation constraint and then the data is presented to be used in calculation to generate the set of dither values. Instructions are followed when the correct values are gathered in order to generate the set of dither values.
Because the claim recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine if the idea is integrated into a practical application, in which case the claim as a whole would not be “directed to” merely an abstract idea.
A recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The term “additional elements” is used for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. The additional elements are “a source,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “a computing device”.
To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
None of the additional limitations is sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims do not recite an improvement for electronic devices. Using a processor and computer to receive nominal shot points and dither values data and then satisfying one or more constraints without disclosing any more of the steps of how this done or how this is done differently than what was done before to improve systems does not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Rather, the claim simply includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Considering claim 1 as a whole, then, the claims not explain a technical solution to a technical problem. Claim 1 as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not recite an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or any other meaningful limitation. Rather, claim 1 recites an abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A(i), and none of the limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. The claims generally link the abstract idea and the gathering of information and determining an output based on comparing the gathered information. The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. The claims are not patent eligible.
Under Step 2B, submits that taking each claim as whole, include significantly more than any judicial exception that could possibly exist in applicant’s claims 1-29. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, we proceed to the “inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The additional elements in the claims are: “a source,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “a computing device”.
The Specification does not indicate that the computer components perform anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving data, looking up data in a database, attempting to execute commands, and storing data in a database. The Specification describes that the steps are performed on a personal computer system, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, mobile phone, mainframe computer system, web server, workstation, or network computer. [0089]. The Specification also states a general processor that performs the same functions as any other general processor, such as gathering information, storing information, and outputting a result [0087] [0088] [0089]. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, in a manner similar to that recited in the claims, is well understood, routine, and conventional because computers receive and send information over a network.
Because the Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques. Claim 1 does not have an inventive concept because the claim, in essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using the computer-based elements. The claims generally link the abstract idea and the gathering of information and determining an output based on comparing the gathered information. The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-29 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 tangible 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 satisfying one or more constraints chosen from the group consisting of: an absolute dither difference constraint, a non-duplication constraint, and a standard deviation constraint;
wherein each of the one or more constraints is based on differences between dither values corresponding to consecutive ones of the nominal shot points, wherein each such difference comprises a dither difference, such that:
satisfying the absolute dither difference constraint comprises ensuring that each dither difference corresponding to the set of dither values is greater than a threshold dither difference;
satisfying the non-duplication constraint comprises ensuring that, for a given set of discrete ranges of dither difference values, at most a threshold number of dither differences corresponding to the set of dither values falls within any one of the ranges;
satisfying the standard deviation constraint comprises ensuring that the standard deviation of dither differences corresponding to the set of 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 satisfying. 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 2-17, 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 1-29 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights