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 .
The amendment on July 8, 2026 has been considered.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea of establishing a matrix representation characteristic of the phase portion of the analytic function representation for the fundamental frequency in the sweeping instantaneous frequency of the pilot sweep signal, and wherein the matrix representation is size limited by a sampling limit for the at least one harmonic mode signal component (mathematical concept), “retrieving, from the analytic function representation for the ground-force signal and after inverting the matrix representation, the fundamental mode signal component of the ground-force signal (mathematical concept), “processing the fundamental mode signal component of the ground-force signal for generating an image of the subterranean region of interest (mathematical concept/mental process), determining well operations at the geophysical exploration site, based on the image of the subterranean region of interest, the well operations involving adjusting a drill bit speed or a drill direction (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
[A]ccessing a plurality of seismic signal traces received at receivers in response to a Vibroseis truck that is driven by a pilot sweep signal and is equipped with at least one base plate is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“… [F]or generating an image of the subterranean region of interest” is not recited positively as meaningful steps (MPEP 2106.05(e)) but as intended actions.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
[A]ccessing a plurality of seismic signal traces received at receivers in response to a Vibroseis truck, equipped with at least one base plate that is driven by a pilot sweep signal are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
[G]enerating a ground-force signal when the at least one base plate makes ground impact for launching an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at a geophysical exploration site”, “the pilot sweep signal is characterized by a sweeping instantaneous frequency including a fundamental frequency”, and “the ground-force signal comprises a fundamental mode signal component as well as at least one harmonic mode signal component” are well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims 2-10 and 11-20 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-20 have no prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a computer-implemented method and system comprising establishing a matrix representation characteristic of the phase portion of the analytic function representation for the fundamental frequency in the sweeping instantaneous frequency of the pilot sweep signal, and retrieving, from the analytic function representation for the ground-force signal and after inverting the matrix representation, the fundamental mode signal component of the ground-force signal (claims 1, 11) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 8, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections, Applicants argue “[s]pecification explicitly identifies a technical problem in conventional seismic data processing: "The retrieval process, in most cases, engages a matrix inversion process which tends to be computationally expensive and intensive, in terms of memory usage and CPU time" (Specification at Para. [0024]). The claimed invention solves this specific, technical problem by establishing a matrix representation that is "size limited by a sampling limit for the at least one harmonic mode signal component." As detailed in the Specification, "Because the Vandermonde matrix only needs to cover the maximum harmonic order within the limits of the Nyquist-frequency sample criterion, the Vandermonde matrix is sufficiently small to allow for compact and efficient computations including, for example, matrix inversions" (Specification at Para. [0025]).”
Examiner’s position is that pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), “[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. “ The technical solution is not an unconventional technical solution, since it has been disclosed by at least Chae et al. (US 2005/0281350) and Chae et al. (US 2005/0249306) (see discussions of prior art below). Thus, the claims are not directed to a technological improvement. Accordingly, the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicants further argue “In the present application, the claims recite additional elements that apply or use the alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way. For example, the independent claims 1 and 11 recite a specific improvement over prior art systems at least by "determining well operations at the geophysical exploration site, based on the image of the subterranean region of interest, the well operations involving adjusting a drill bit speed or a drill direction."”
Examiner’s position is that "determining well operations at the geophysical exploration site, based on the image of the subterranean region of interest, the well operations involving adjusting a drill bit speed or a drill direction” involves an analysis/evaluation that can be performed by a mental process.
Applicants further argue “[a]s described in the preceding paragraphs, the specific improvement of the additional elements also allow for machine operations for enhancing operations of oil production at particular geophysical exploration sites.”
Examiner’s position is that “enhancing operations of oil production at particular geophysical exploration sites” is not recited in the claims. For example, the claims recite “determining well operations at the geophysical exploration site, based on the image of the subterranean region of interest, the well operations involving adjusting a drill bit speed or a drill direction”. The claims only recite “determining well operations at the geophysical exploration site” but does not recite the active step of “adjusting a drill bit speed or a drill direction”. Thus, the claims do not indicate “enhancing operations of oil production at particular geophysical exploration sites”. Thus, the abstract idea is not applied/used in a meaningful way such that the claims are indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chae et al. (US 2005/0281350) discloses “use of an existing Vandermonde matrix as a pre-coding matrix requires ML-decoding for size 4, ML-decoding for size 2 suffices in relation to the pre-coding matrix of the present invention, resulting in a significant decrease in complexity (computation volume)” (paragraph 0106).
Chae et al. (US 2005/0249306) discloses “employing the Vandermonde matrix as a pre-encoding matrix, the pre-encoding matrix according to an embodiment of the present invention described above reduces complexity from ML decoding of size 4 to ML decoding of size-2, thereby minimizing the amount of computation needed” (paragraph 0124).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 72-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights