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
Argument and amendment filed on 04/15/2026 are considered. Applicant amended independent claims 1-4, 6-34.
Claim objection: Applicant amended claims 1-4, 6-34 as suggested. Therefore, the claim objection for these claims is withdrawn.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101: Applicant argument regarding the practical application of the invention and improvement brought by the instant invention in the field of earth’s subsurface exploration is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 for claims 1-11, 23-28 are withdrawn.
Applicant has not responded for the claim rejection for claims 12-22 and 29-34 regarding the non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, the rejection is maintained for claims 12-22 and 29-34.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C 102/103: Applicant argument regarding the claim’s limitations for independent claims 1, 12, 23 and 29 are persuasive.
The further search and consideration do not find prior art teaching the limitation of “calculating a scalar and a sparsity-modified matrix using an adaptive gradient type scheme to estimate an inverse Hessian matrix, and using the estimated inverse Hessian matrix in a modified limited memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (LBFGS) optimization.”
For claims 23 and 29, the applicant argued limitation, the further search and consideration does not find prior art teaching the limitation of “calculating an estimate of an inverse Hessian as a convolutional operator (C) and using the estimated inverse Hessian in a modified limited memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (L-BFGS) optimization, using the modified L-BFGS optimization to optimize the inversion processing”.
For Claims 1, 12, 23 and 29, further search and consideration find prior art Warner US 20160238729 A1 teaching/suggesting the limitation “using the modified L-BFGS optimization to optimize the inversion processing, wherein an output of the optimized inversion processing comprises the spatial distribution of geophysical properties for which the expected geophysical sensor signals most closely match the detected geophysical sensor signals (para [0020] The FWI technique involves generating a two or three dimensional model to represent the measured portion of the Earth and attempting to modify the properties and parameters of the Earth model to generate predicted data that matches the experimentally obtained seismic trace data.
[0022] FWI can extract many physical properties (V.sub.p and V.sub.s velocities, attenuation, density, anisotropy) of the modelled portion of the Earth
[0052] For example, various improved approximations to the Hessian matrix H and its inverse can be made including use of Newton, Gauss-Newton, quasi-Newton and Limited Memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (L-BFGS) methods.)
From the above paragraphs examiner views the Warner teaches a L-BFGS optimization to optimize the inversion process, the optimized full wave inversion process comprises extracting the spatial distribution of geophysical properties of earth for which the predicted or expected geophysical sensor signals most closely match the detected geophysical sensor signals.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 is missing a comma. Claim 8 can be corrected as “The method of claim 5, …”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-34 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.
Claims 1, 12, 23 and 29 recite a term “most closely match”. After reviewing the specification, it is unclear which condition would define the most closely match between the expected geophysical signal and the measured or detected geophysical signal.
Therefore, claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 (b). Applicant is suggested to remove the unclear term “most closely” to overcome the rejection.
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.
Regarding claim 12 and 29,
A computer program stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, the program having logic operable to cause a programmable computer to perform actions for determining spatial distribution of geophysical properties of formations in a subsurface volume using geophysical sensor signals detected proximate the volume, the actions comprising: accepting as input to the computer the geophysical sensor signals; inversion processing an initial model of the spatial distribution, the inversion processing comprising calculating expected geophysical sensor signals using the initial model and comparing the expected geophysical sensor signals to the detected geophysical sensor signals, the inversion processing comprising at least second order optimizing, the at least second order optimizing comprising, calculating a scalar and a sparsity-modified matrix using an adaptive gradient type scheme to estimate an inverse Hessian matrix in limited memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno (L-BFGS) optimization, using the scaled sparsity-modified matrix to improve the estimated inverse Hessian matrix in order to optimize the inversion processing; finalizing the model of the spatial distribution when a value of an objective function in the inversion processing is minimized; and generating an output of the spatial distribution of the geophysical properties, for which the calculated seismic signals most closely match the detected geophysical sensor signals.
The claim limitations with the non-statutory subject matter and abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory or non-statutory category. In the above claim, the highlighted portion (A computer program) constitutes a non-statutory subject matter under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover “products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”. Refer to MPEP 2106.03.
Since, the claim 12 fails the patent eligibility under patent eligibility step 2A, prong one, further analysis under step 2A, prong two is ineligible. Although, the claim 20 recites the same abstract ideas (inversion processing… and generating…) as claim 1 and the recited abstract ideas do not appear to be integrated into a practical application for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Therefore, the independent claim 12 is not patent eligible. Claim 29 is also not patent eligible as discussed for claim 12.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims 12 and 29 as:
A non- transitory computer-readable medium storing instruction or computer program that, when executed by the computer cause the computer to perform actions for determining spatial…
Similarly, please amend their dependent claims 13-22 and 30-34 as
(A non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, in where….).
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no prior art rejections for independent claims 1, 12, 23 and 29. However, examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the claim objections, claim rejections under USC, 112 and 101 are adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Routh et al US 20150012256 A1 discusses inversion processing of seismic data.
Tang et al US 20130311149 A1 discuss inversion processing of full wave.
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 SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights