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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 6/26/2017, are accepted and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/26/2017 have been fully considered. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejection, Applicant’s amendments have addressed these issues and are therefore withdrawn.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection, Applicant argues that the claims integrate into a practical application. However Examiner notes that the additional elements in the claims need to integrate the abstract idea into practical application, and Examiner views that the claims do not recite such additional elements and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to Claims 1, 4, 7 the limitations A computer-implemented method for generating distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) vertical seismic profile (VSP) data the method improving accuracy of DAS VSP synthetic data and computational efficiency of modeling, the method, comprising: a. receiving, synthetic DAS acquisition parameters that specify at least one of source geometry, receiver geometry, and survey configuration to be used for generating synthetic pressure-field data; b. modeling, synthetic pressure-field data based on the synthetic DAS acquisition parameters; c. applying, reciprocity-based source-receiver interchange to the synthetic pressure-field data by using receiver locations as reciprocal sources and using shot locations as reciprocal receivers to generate an augmented dataset representing additional source-receiver combinations; d. organizing, the augmented dataset into pressure-field common shot gathers according to shot location; and e. converting, the pressure-field common shot gathers into strain-rate DAS VSP data based on numerical operations applied to the pressure-field common shot gathers. This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by Formula 1 and 2. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.In particular, the claim recites the additional element – via the one or more processing cores (Claim 1) A computer system, comprising: one or more processing cores; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processing cores (Claim 4) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with one or more processing cores and memory, cause the device to: (Claim 7) These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Horne (US 2019/0293814 A1) Zhan (US 2018/0275303 A1) Padhi (US 2020/0081145 A1) LeBlanc (US 2021/0405232 A1) Mizuno (US 2022/0307895 A1) Kumar (US2023/021269 A1) Krebs (US20100018718 A1) Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception. Dependent claims 2-3,5-6,8-9 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Claims 2-3,5-6,8-9 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 3, 6, 9, recite “repeating the steps with different synthetic DAS acquisition parameters in order to compare the strain-rate DAS VSP data so a preferred set of DAS acquisition parameters can be determined and implemented for a real-life survey”. Examiner notes “can be” has been interpreted as “Capable of”. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ. 138.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kumar (US2023/021269 A1) teaches receiving seismic survey data of a subsurface environment from a seismic survey that includes a source arrangement of sources that is spatially denser than a receiver arrangement of receivers; processing the seismic survey data using the principle of reciprocity for performing interpolation across the receivers to generate processed seismic survey data; and generating an image of at least a portion of the subsurface environment using the processed seismic survey data. As explained, a method can include various actions that can aim to assure that both the common source and receiver gather are similar in nature by performing re-datuming, followed by using the principle of reciprocity to interchange source location and receiver location to estimate stable priors to perform reconstruction across nodes. Krebs (US20100018718 A1) teaches, the present invention is a computer implemented method for inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a physical properties model for a subsurface region, comprising: (a) obtaining a group of two or more encoded gathers of the measured geophysical data, wherein each gather is associated with a single generalized source or, using source-receiver reciprocity, with a single receiver, and wherein each gather is encoded with a different encoding signature selected from a set non-equivalent encoding signatures
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 YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights