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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a method for generating a merged survey dataset comprising: obtaining…and generating the merged survey dataset using the first modified survey dataset and the second modified survey dataset” which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: the claim recites an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 1 recites the steps of “obtaining…obtaining…generating…calculating…and generating…” which fall within the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), i.e. mental process and mathematical calculation.
The steps encompass “observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion” which can be performed in the human mind. The steps “calculating…” and “generating the merged survey dataset using the plurality of modified survey datasets” encompass making a determination, e.g. generating the merged survey dataset.
The recited steps in claim 1 are all data gathering.
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The recited steps when viewed alone or in combination are data gathering, “obtaining…”, “calculating…”, “modifying…” and “generating…” and are not performed by any particular machine and are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea without any details how the outcomes are accomplished.
The recited limitation “generating the merged survey dataset using the first modified survey dataset and the second modified survey dataset…” are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when considered in combination, it represents mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims when viewed as a whole does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does it affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Instead, the claim appears to monopolize the abstract idea itself for any purpose or in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. It can cover anything that could be done in the field of generating a merged survey dataset. The recited limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of survey data. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The claim does not appear to represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology.
Considering the factors in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05 (a)&(b), these are recited in a highly general way and do not even establish a specific field-of-use. Rather than the abstract idea being limited to a particular practical application/improving the technology as disclosed in the instant Specification, the claim would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of technologies and fields. Therefore, the claims do not show an improvement in an existing technology.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the steps are performed by a particular machine. They are not performed by any device.
Regarding claim 20, the processor as recited is merely a tool used to perform the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claim 3 adds limitations which is mathematical calculation and data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 5 adds limitation which is data gathering. The “(modified) plurality of survey datasets…” are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 6 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional element.
Dependent claim 7 adds a limitation which are data gathering. The “(modified) plurality of survey datasets…” are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 add limitations which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional element.
Dependent claims 10-13 add limitations which are mathematical calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional element.
Dependent claim 14 adds a limitation which is data gathering extending the abstract idea without adding any additional element and considered insignificant extra solution.
Dependent claims 15 and 16 add limitations which are related to mathematical calculations and considered insignificant extra solution.
Dependent claims 17 and 18 add limitations which are related to mathematical calculations and considered insignificant extra solution. The graphs represent extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Claim 1’s explanation is herein incorporated by reference.
Claim 20 recites an information handling system which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the apparatus to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a processor. In other words, the device claim is no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the apparatus claim and medium claim recites generic components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 16, 2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's response, Remarks filed on 07/16/2026 at Pages 8 and 9, "Applicant submits that the claims as a whole recited provide an improvement to the recited technical field. In particular, the limitations of independent claims 1, 19, and 20, as a whole, provide a method for generating a new dataset based on multiple sets of already-processed seismic data for the ultimate purpose of improving the seismic data about subterranean deposits and locating resource deposits by allowing for the smooth merging of already-processed seismic data where no raw data may be available or where further collection may be cost prohibited." Considering the factors in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05 (a) &(b), and these are recited in a highly general way and do not even establish a specific field-of-use. Rather than the abstract idea being limited to a particular practical application/improving the technology as disclosed in the instant Specification, the claim would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of technologies and fields. Therefore, the claims do not show an improvement in an existing technology.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the steps are performed by a particular machine. They are not performed by any device.
Regarding claim 20, the processor as recited is merely a tool used to perform the abstract idea.
2) Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome previous Objection and claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “generating a first modified survey data set, from the first survey dataset, and a second modified survey dataset…global constraint applicable to each of the plurality edges and configured to smoothly fit calculated shifts in an overlapping region between the first plurality of traces …using the plurality of edges and a global constraint applicable to each of the plurality edges and configured to smoothly fit calculated shifts in an overlapping region between the first plurality of traces and the second plurality of traces; and generating the merged survey dataset using the first modified survey dataset and the second modified survey data set” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Claims 3 and 5-18 depend from claim 1 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “calculating an edge between …overlapping region; and generating the merged survey data; and generating the merged survey dataset using the edge, wherein reflectors of data…without broken reflector transitions” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “generating a first modified survey dataset, from the first survey dataset…using the plurality of edges, and a global constraint applicable to each of the plurality edges and configured to smoothly fit calculated shift in an overlapping region between the first plurality of traces and the second plurality of traces; and generating the merged survey dataset using the first modified survey dataset and the second modified survey dataset” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
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 PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights