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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/21/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-14, & 16-17 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 7, 12-13, &17 have been amended. Claims 4, 8-11, 15, & 18-20 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page , filed 07/21/2026, with respect to Drawing Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawings of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page , filed 07/21/2026, with respect to 35 U have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page , filed 07/21/2026, with respect to 35 U have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112( of claim 1 have been withdrawn, except for the 112(b) rejections of 13-14, & 16-17 due to recitation of the limitation “the system of claim 12[13]” since claim 12 has multiple “system” and a reference to “the system” (without further adjectives) would then be unclear as to which system was being referenced.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page , filed 07/21/2026, with respect to prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claim have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page , filed 07/21/2026, with respect to "rejection under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 10 lines 9-13):
“In the two-part analysis, it is determined whether the claimed subject matter is directed towards a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea (i.e., “the first step” or “Step 2A”) and if so, whether the elements of a claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself(i.e., “the second step” or “Step 2B”). See id.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The Examiner followed the up to date guidance in the MPEP 2106, the analysis in the non-final filed 04/21/2026 and this updated final is the complete 35 USC 101 analysis including Step 2A and Step 2B. The full analysis of each element and limitation determines that either individually or in combination the claimed invention is not significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page , filed 07/21/2026, with respect to "rejection under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 11 lines 2-4):
“More specifically, “to make a rejection of a claim under any of the statutory bases (i.e., 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112), unpatentability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (emphasis added).”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The 35 USC 101 analysis in the non-final filed 04/21/2026 as well as the updated 101 analysis in this office action clearly shows with a preponderance of evidence that the claims are unpatentable since they are not significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page , filed 07/21/2026, with respect to "rejection under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 11 lines 9-14):
“(2) assuming arguendo, that the claims would recite a judicial exception, amended independent claims 1 and 12 integrate any proposed judicial exception into a practical application in the claims and recite patent eligible subject matter under step 2A of the USPTO subject matter eligibility test; and (3) assuming, arguendo, that the claims would be directed toward a judicial exception, amended independent claims 1 and 12 recite significantly more than any proposed judicial exception.”
& (page 12 lines 13-16):
“Furthermore, independent claim 1 recites several limitations that are clearly not practically performable in the human mind in view of August 101 Memo, such as (1) “acquiring, using a seismic acquisition system, seismic data regarding a subsurface region of interest, wherein the seismic acquisition system comprises a plurality of seismic receivers and a seismic source””
& (page 13 line 21-page 14 line 2):
“paleogeographic surface and seismic surface of the seismic attribute” also do not “set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbol””
Examiner respectfully responds:
The 101 analysis shows that the claims are directed towards judicial exceptions of either mental processes or mathematical concepts done by generic computing elements. The claims clearly necessitate either ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’ and mathematical concepts need not be expressed in mathematical symbols (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), .The elements of “seismic receivers” & “seismic source” though they can’t be done in the mind or by conventional computing elements alone are shown (see 35 USC 101 section below) to be generic, necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s), and conventional. These elements, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 14 line 8 to page 17 line 10, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to "rejection under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 14 lines 9-11):
“Turning to Prong Two of Step 2A, Applicant respectfully asserts that any assumed judicial exception recited in amended independent claims 1 and 12 are integrated into a practical application.”
& (page 14 lines 17-page 15 line 2):
“In particular, the August 101 Memo notes three important factors under the “Apply it” consideration: (1) … (3)”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The 35 USC 101 analysis at step 2A prong two shows that any additional element or limitation is not significantly more than the judicial exception(s); any additional element or limitation is either ‘extra solution activity’, effectively stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s), or a field of art limitation. The claim consists of judicial exception(s) and elements and limitations which are incidental or tangential to the inventive concept (which is a judicial exception of either mental processes or mathematical concepts). No particular machine or process is disclosed beyond the judicial exception(s).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 17 line 11 to page 18 line 21, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to "rejection under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 17 lines 15-20):
“More specifically, “[t]he application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
As shown in the 35 101 analysis (below) besides the judicial exception(s), the claims recite generic computing elements which would not be significantly more than a computing environment and “seismic receivers” with “seismic source” which are shown to be both necessary extra solution activity and conventional to the technological environment corresponding to at least CPC symbol G01V1/282. The benefit of “determining the presence of hydrocarbons in a subsurface region of interest” may be useful but it is also an entire field of art of which CPC symbol G01V1/282 is a small fraction.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 19 lines 1-18, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to "rejection under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 19 lines 13-18):
“In other words, “[w]hether a claim element or combination of elements would have been well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field at a particular point int time may require weighing evidence, making credibility judgements, and addressing narrow facts that utterly resist generalization.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The 101 analysis below includes Berkheimer v. HP analysis. It is shown that the additional elements of “seismic receivers” with “seismic source” are well known conventional elements.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 19 line 19 to page 22 line 2, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to "rejection under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 19 lines 19-21):
“As noted in the Prong One Step of 2A analysis above, the claim limitation “determining the presence of hydrocarbons in a subsurface region” is an additional element for the step 2B analysis in amended claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
This is a limitation directed towards a judicial exception of either mental processes or mathematical concepts. The elements of the claim(s) (including “seismic acquisition system”, “seismic receivers” with “seismic source”) are either generic computing elements, field of art limitations, or conventional elements well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application. Judicial exceptions directed towards making determinations based on data (mental processes or mathematical concepts) are not incorporated into a patentable invention by the inclusion of such elements.
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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 13-14, & 16-17 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 “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claims 13-14, & 16-17 in line 1 (for each claim) recites the limitation "the system of claim 12[13]". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Within claim 12 there are multiple ‘systems’ which could be “the system of claim 12[13]”. Examiner recommends amending the first line of claim 12 to “A system for determining a validated geological model” and amending the first line of all dependent claims to ‘The system for determining a validated geological model of claim 12[13][18]’.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-14, 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“determining, by a geological modeling system comprising a computer processor, geological data using the plurality of well logs;”
“generating, by the geological modeling system, a paleogeographic surface using the geological data, the seismic data, a paleogeographic reconstruction process, and a decompaction model, wherein the geological data and the seismic data are used to determine a plurality of stratigraphic layers in the subsurface region of interest, and wherein the paleogeographic reconstruction process transforms a thickness of a layer among the plurality of stratigraphic layers into a decompacted thickness based on the decompaction model;”
“generating, using the geological modeling system, a seismic surface of a seismic attribute using the seismic data;”
“generating, by the geological modeling system, an updated paleogeographic surface, iteratively or recursively, until a stopping condition is reached and based on a difference between the paleogeographic surface and the seismic surface of the seismic attribute;”
“determining, by the geological modeling system, a validated geological model of the subsurface region of interest based, at least in part, on the updated paleogeographic surface;”
“and determining, by the geological modeling system, a presence of hydrocarbons in the subsurface region of interest using the validated geological model.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
“The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
&
“Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.”
Analysis:
Except for the broad and generic recitation of types of “system” (which are not significantly more than generic computing elements) these limitations are either mental processes or broadly recited calculations that could either be done in the mind or within a generic computer. A surface is directed towards mathematical equation or model resulting in a 2D surface in a 3D space and as such is a mathematical relation. “determining” and “generating” using data and models is to apply the judicial exception categories of either ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’ to data.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“a seismic acquisition system”
“seismic receivers”
“seismic source”
“logging system”
“logging tool”
“wells”
“geological modeling system comprising a computer processor”
The claim recites the additional limitation of:
“acquiring, using a seismic acquisition system, seismic data regarding a subsurface region of interest, wherein the seismic acquisition system comprises a plurality of seismic receivers and a seismic source, and wherein the seismic source propagates a plurality of seismic waves through the subsurface region of interest that are received by the plurality of seismic receivers to produce the seismic data”
“acquiring, using a logging system comprising a logging tool, a plurality of well logs from a plurality of wells in the subsurface region of interest;”
Explanation:Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g):
“Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
The systems and logging tool are either generic computing elements for applying the judicial exception or for necessary data gathering,
or in the case of “well” a field of art limitation corresponding to at least CPC symbol G01V 1/282 . . {Application of seismic models, synthetic seismograms}.
The elements of “seismic receivers” and “seismic source” are necessary generic elements which are required for necessary extra solution activity (pre-solution) from a “subsurface region” such as is implied by the field of art corresponding to CPC G01V1/282.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements/limitations listed in step 2A Prong Two are (at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation) either
Judicial exception (mental process or mathematical concept) applied to data or no more than ‘Receiving or transmitting data over a network’ or ‘retrieving information in a memory’.
Field of art limitation corresponding to at least the field corresponding to CPC G01V1/282
Conventional elements directed towards necessary data gathering for the field of art.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I):
“An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
Analysis:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the elements/limitations are directed towards receiving data over a network or from a memory.
Regarding the conventionality of “seismic receivers” & “seismic source”:
US 20230393295 A1 “System and Method for Obtaining Minimum Phase Source-Signatures from Multi-Channel Multi-Offset Seismic Data” (Aghayan)
see para 0005: “Many variations of the conventional source-receiver arrangement are used in practice, e.g. VSP (vertical seismic profiles) surveys, ocean bottom surveys, etc. Further, the surface location of every trace in a seismic survey is carefully tracked and is generally made a part of the trace itself (e.g., as part of the trace header information).”
& Fig. 1A-101: “Seismic source” with Fig. 1A-102: “seismic recorders”/”receiver”
US 20250067891 A1 “Method of Attenuating Migration Artifacts” (Liang)
See Fig. 2-110: “seismic sources” with Fig. 2-112: “seismic receivers”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“further comprising determining a drilling target in the subsurface region based, at least in part, on the validated geological model.”
Explanation:
This additional limitation is directed towards further “determining” which is within either judicial exception abstract idea groupings of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“further comprising: planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target;”
Explanation:
This additional limitation is directed towards further “determining” which is within either judicial exception abstract idea groupings of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“and drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.”
Analysis:
This additional element/limitation is not significantly more than either stating “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception(s) or linking the use of the judicial exception(s) to the particular technological environment of either CPC symbol G01V 1/282 {Seismology; Seismic or acoustic prospecting or detecting } {Processing seismic data, e.g. for interpretation or for event detection} {Application of seismic models, synthetic seismograms} or CPC symbol G01V 2200/16 {Details of seismic or acoustic prospecting or detecting in general } { Miscellaneous details } Measure-while-drilling or logging-while-drilling
Conclusion:
The additional element/limitation(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional element/limitation of “and drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory.”
Does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I):
“When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).”
&
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.,”
Analysis:
The “drilling, using a drilling system, a portion of a wellbore” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 12571295 B2 “System And Method For Frequency Ratio Volume Fluid Geobody Extraction” (Sodagar, previously cited) see Fig. 3, & column 2 lines 3-4: “FIG. 3 shows a drilling system (300) in accordance with one or more embodiments.”
US 12437231 B2 “Differential Multi Model Training For Multiple Interpretation Options” (Grady, previously cited) see Fig. 1B, & Column 5 lines 28-30: “FIG. 1B illustrates a drilling operation being performed by drilling tools 106b suspended by rig 128 and advanced into subterranean formations 102 to form wellbore 136.”
US 11099289 B2 “Multivariate Analysis Of Seismic Data, Microseismic Data, And Petrophysical Properties In Fracture Modeling” (Dev, previously cited) see Fig. 2- 204: “wellbore” & column 3 lines 21-32: “The measured data that relates to the petrophysical property may be from, for example, nuclear magnetic resonance measurements, gamma ray measurements, photoelectric measurements, neutron measurements, geochemical measurements, resistivity measurements, acoustic measurements, borehole imaging measurements, mud logs, core sample measurements, geomechanical measurements, and the like, and any combination thereof, which may be collected with surface tools, measurement-while-drilling (MWD) tools, logging-while-drilling (LWD) tools, wireline tools, or combinations thereof.”
Conclusion:
Therefore, limitations directed towards ‘drilling’ are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the seismic attribute is seismic attenuation.”
Explanation:
A “seismic attribute” is a variable in an equation or model and is therefore directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of at least ‘mathematical concepts’.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the difference comprises a Euclidean distance.”
Explanation:
A “difference” is a variable in an equation or model and is therefore directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of at least ‘mathematical concepts’. Additionally, ‘Euclidean distance’ is a mathematical relation between variables.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the stopping condition is based on a difference between a predetermined value and an average distance between the updated paleogeographic surface and a surface of a plurality of seismic attributes.”
Explanation:
A “difference” is a variable in an equation or model and is therefore directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of at least ‘mathematical concepts’. Additionally, ‘average’ is a mathematical relation between variables.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 12-14, 16-17 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-3, 5-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11828895 B2 “Methods And Devices Using Effective Elastic Parameter Values For Anisotropic Media” (Tanase) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 12687649 B2 “Method And Apparatus For Adaptive Cross-correlation Based Full Waveform Inversion” (Liu) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 11754736 B2 “System And Method For Classifying Seismic Data By Integrating Petrophysical Data” (Palmer) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 11614555 B2 “Method And System For Connecting Elements To Sources And Receivers During Spectrum Element Method And Finite Element Method Seismic Wave Modeling” (Xu) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 5.
US 11221425 B1 “Generating A Model For Seismic Velocities In A Subsurface Region Using Inversion With Lateral Variations” (He) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 3
US 20220291418 A1 “An Integrated Geomechanics Model for Predicting Hydrocarbon and Migration Pathways” (Noufal) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 2
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights