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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/06/2024 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 contain illegible text. New corrected drawing with clearer print is required of FIG. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Particularly the numbers and letters are blurred and/or illegible making the content unclear. New corrected drawing with clearer print is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for detecting and locating microseismic events, comprising: positioning a plurality of sensors for recording microseismic signals in a predetermined observation area comprising a study volume with a plurality of study points; modeling seismic-mechanical properties for the predetermined observation area based on prior data, wherein the prior data comprises a vertical seismic profile, maps of active seismic depth, or time; simulating expected microseismic responses on sensors from the study points of the study volume; filtering of quasi-harmonic interference in the collection of recorded microseismic signals by channel; calibrating model responses using inverse filters; predicting a location of a microseismic event; determining a seismic moment tensor at each grid point of the study volume using a maximum likelihood method to determine a type of event; and calculating a moment magnitude of the event.
Claim 8 recites a system for detecting and locating microseismic events, comprising: a plurality of sensors positioned for recording microseismic signals with a plurality of channels in a predetermined observation area comprising a study volume with a plurality of study points; a computing device with a processor, memory, and nonvolatile storage, configured for modeling seismic-mechanical properties for the predetermined observation area based on prior data, wherein the prior data comprises a vertical seismic profile, maps of active seismic depth, or time; a simulation module, under computing-device control, configured for simulating expected microseismic responses on sensors from the study points of the study volume; a filtering module, under computing-device control, configured for filtering quasi-harmonic interference in the collection of recorded microseismic signals by channel; a calibration module, under computing device control, configured for calibrating model responses using inverse filters; a seismic-event location module, under computing device control, configured for predicting a location of a microseismic event, wherein the seismic-event location module is further configured for determining a seismic moment tensor at each grid point of the study volume using a maximum likelihood method to determine a type of event; and wherein the seismic-event location module is further configured for calculating a moment magnitude of the event.
Claim 15 recites a method for detecting and locating microseismic events, comprising: modeling seismic-mechanical properties for a predetermined area comprising a study volume with a plurality of study points, wherein the modeling is based on prior data and wherein the prior data comprises a vertical seismic profile, maps of active seismic depth, or time; simulating expected microseismic responses from sensors located at the study points of the study volume; receiving a collection of recorded microseismic signals from the predetermined area; filtering quasi-harmonic interference in the collection of recorded microseismic signals by channel; calibrating model responses using inverse filters; predicting a location of a microseismic event; determining a seismic moment tensor at each grid point of the study volume using a maximum likelihood method to determine a type of event; and calculating a moment magnitude of the event.
and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “positioning a plurality of sensors for recording microseismic signals in a predetermined observation area comprising a study volume with a plurality of study points” (claim 8) “a plurality of sensors positioned for recording microseismic signals with a plurality of channels in a predetermined observation area comprising a study volume with a plurality of study points” (claim 15) “receiving a collection of recorded microseismic signals from the predetermined area” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claim 8) “a computing device with a processor, memory, nonvolatile storage and module, under computing-device control” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are considered extra-solution activity of pre-solution and post-solution activity which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the processor and modules are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-18 and 20 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
To note: Claims 7, 14 and 19 are patent eligible with regards to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claims, taken as a whole amount to a practical application of the judicial exception see MPEP 2106.04(d) (a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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 judicial exception).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7, 14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is objected to because the closest prior art, Williams et al. [US 2015/0081223 A1, fails to anticipate or render obvious determining a seismic moment tensor at each grid point of the study volume using a maximum likelihood method to determine a type of event, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claim 8 is objected to because the closest prior art, Williams et al. [US 2015/0081223 A1, fails to anticipate or render obvious determining a seismic moment tensor at each grid point of the study volume using a maximum likelihood method to determine a type of event, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claim 15 is objected to because the closest prior art, Williams et al. [US 2015/0081223 A1, fails to anticipate or render obvious determining a seismic moment tensor at each grid point of the study volume using a maximum likelihood method to determine a type of event, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Erokhin et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0241157 A1) discloses methods and systems for real-time surface microseismic monitoring of a hydraulic fracture and other technical activities;
Maxwell et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0108705 A1) discloses a method of calibrating fracture geometry to microseismic events;
Chambers et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0226437 A1) discloses a method for estimating moment tensor components of a source;
Song et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0336091 A1) discloses an automated detection system for microseismic events using automated calculations of one or more statistical parameters for statistics-based detection of microseismic events of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights