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 .
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 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the subsurface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claim 10-18 are directed to using a computing device to perform the method, and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for seismic exploration using a full waveform inversion, FWI, the method comprising:
receiving an initial velocity model V of the subsurface;
receiving recorded data d related to the subsurface;
generating synthetic data u related to the subsurface, using the initial velocity model V and a source signature of a source S, which is used to generate waves into the subsurface;
transforming the recorded data d and the synthetic data u, with a complex wavelet transform, into complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′, respectively, allowing for natural separation between kinematics and dynamics trough phase and amplitude;
updating the initial velocity model V using the FWI to generate an updated velocity model, based on a cost function J which depends on the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′; and
generating an image of a surveyed subsurface formation in the subsurface based on the updated velocity model, wherein the formation is used to locate natural resources.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“receiving recorded data d related to the subsurface” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“generating synthetic data u related to the subsurface, using the initial velocity model V and a source signature of a source S, which is used to generate waves into the subsurface” is directed to math because it involves significant applications of mathematics, particularly in areas like applied mathematics, physics, and computational science. Wave propagation through the subsurface is modeled using PDEs, primarily the acoustic or elastic wave equations. These equations describe how the initial source signature (a boundary condition) propagates through a given velocity field. To solve the complex wave equations on a computer, various numerical methods are employed. These include finite difference methods (FDM), finite element methods (FEM), and spectral methods. These techniques discretize continuous space and time to approximate the solution, which relies heavily on numerical analysis.
“transforming the recorded data d and the synthetic data u, with a complex wavelet transform, into complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′, respectively, allowing for natural separation between kinematics and dynamics trough phase and amplitude” is directed to math because the techniques involve several mathematical concepts: The CWT itself is a mathematical operation, an extension of the continuous or discrete wavelet transform, designed to provide a more thorough representation of signals. Its mathematical formulation uses complex numbers to yield a representation that inherently separates a signal into instantaneous amplitude (magnitude) and phase components. In seismic analysis (where this technique is often applied), the amplitude of the transformed data is related to the reflectivity and physical properties of the materials (dynamics), while the phase is related to the timing and geometry of wave arrivals (kinematics). The CWT's ability to naturally decouple these two aspects relies on the mathematical properties of the transform. The entire process is a direct application of signal processing theory, which is a significant branch of applied mathematics used to analyze, modify, and synthesize signals.
“updating the initial velocity model V using the FWI to generate an updated velocity model, based on a cost function J which depends on the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′” is directed to math because the "cost function" is a mathematical function that quantifies the misfit between the recorded data and the synthetic data. Minimizing this function to find the optimal velocity model involves techniques from calculus of variations, gradient descent, and iterative numerical optimization methods. The use of complex wavelet transforms to process both recorded and synthetic data relies on a sophisticated mathematical framework for analyzing signals in time and frequency domains. Wavelet mathematics provides the basis for decomposing signals into different scales and localizing features, which can make the inversion more robust than using raw data. The "synthetic data" is generated by solving wave equations, which are fundamental PDEs that describe wave propagation through a medium. Numerical methods, such as finite difference or finite element methods, are used to solve these equations computationally.
“generating an image of a surveyed subsurface formation in the subsurface based on the updated velocity model, wherein the formation is used to locate natural resources” is directed to a mental step of displaying the results.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “waves or wavelet” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " generating synthetic data u related to the subsurface, using the initial velocity model V and a source signature of a source S, which is used to generate waves into the subsurface; transforming the recorded data d and the synthetic data u, with a complex wavelet transform, into complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′, respectively, allowing for natural separation between kinematics and dynamics trough phase and amplitude; updating the initial velocity model V using the FWI to generate an updated velocity model, based on a cost function J which depends on the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for seismic exploration using a full waveform inversion, FWI, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving an initial velocity model V of the subsurface” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving recorded data d related to the subsurface” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating synthetic data u related to the subsurface, using the initial velocity model V and a source signature of a source S, which is used to generate waves into the subsurface” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“transforming the recorded data d and the synthetic data u, with a complex wavelet transform, into complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′, respectively, allowing for natural separation between kinematics and dynamics trough phase and amplitude” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“updating the initial velocity model V using the FWI to generate an updated velocity model, based on a cost function J which depends on the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating an image of a surveyed subsurface formation in the subsurface based on the updated velocity model, wherein the formation is used to locate natural resources” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Step 2B:
“A method for seismic exploration using a full waveform inversion, FWI, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving an initial velocity model V of the subsurface” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving recorded data d related to the subsurface” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating synthetic data u related to the subsurface, using the initial velocity model V and a source signature of a source S, which is used to generate waves into the subsurface” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“transforming the recorded data d and the synthetic data u, with a complex wavelet transform, into complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′, respectively, allowing for natural separation between kinematics and dynamics trough phase and amplitude” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“updating the initial velocity model V using the FWI to generate an updated velocity model, based on a cost function J which depends on the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating an image of a surveyed subsurface formation in the subsurface based on the updated velocity model, wherein the formation is used to locate natural resources” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 but recites a computing device for imaging a formation into a subsurface, the computing device comprising: an interface configured and a processor connected to the interface and configured to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 10 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 10.
Claim 19 cites a non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, implement a method. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 19 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, “calculating the cost function Jas a function dependent only on the phase shifts of the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, “calculating the cost function Jas a function dependent only on the amplitude differences of the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, “calculating the cost function Jas a function dependent on the phase shifts and amplitude differences of the complex wavelet transformed recorded data d′ and the complex wavelet transformed synthetic data u′” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, “wherein the complex wavelet transform is a double tree complex wavelet transform or a curvelet transform” is directed to math because the DT-CWT uses two parallel wavelet trees for complex coefficients, while Curvelets use elongated basis functions (ridges) to adapt to curve singularities, both leveraging complex numbers and filter bank theory. Both CWT/DT-CWT and Curvelets are advanced mathematical tools for multi-scale, multi-orientation signal analysis, moving beyond simple DWT.
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 20 “computing an adjoint wavefield for an adjoint source S′, at a receiver position, where the data d is recorded, based on the cost function J” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 7, 17, and 20, “wherein the adjoint wavefield is calculated as a derivative of the cost function J with a phase or an amplitude” is directed to math.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, “calculating a cross-correlation between a forward propagated source wavefield and a backward propagated adjoint source wavefield; and using a gradient obtained from the cross-correlation to update the initial velocity model” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the data dis seismic data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cooper et al. (US 10,976,457) disclose A method for seismic exploration of an underground structure, the method comprising: obtaining recorded data which was acquired by probing the underground structure using seismic waves; generating synthetic data corresponding to the recorded data, using a model of the underground structure; computing a partial match filter, PMF, partially matching the recorded data and the synthetic data; generating auxiliary data using the PMF and one of the synthetic and recorded data; and updating the model based on the auxiliary data, wherein the updated model is useable to locate natural resources in the explored underground structure.
Wang et al. (US 11,215,720) disclose a method for seismic exploration, the method comprising: obtaining seismic data acquired using multicomponent sensors able to detect P-waves and S-waves emerging from a subsurface formation after P-waves have been injected therein, the detected P-waves being recorded as PP observed data and the detected S-waves being recorded as PS observed data, respectively; separating the PS observed data from the seismic data; generating PS synthetic data using acoustic approximation equations in anisotropic media with a P-wave model, a current S-wave velocity model and a reflectivity model as inputs; updating the current S-wave velocity model using a full waveform inversion, FWI, to minimize an amplitude-discrepancy-mitigating, ADM, cost function quantifying difference between the PS observed data and the PS synthetic data while alleviating an amplitude mismatch between the PS observed data and the PS synthetic data due to the use of the acoustic approximation equations; and using the updated S-wave velocity model to assess presence of natural resources in the subsurface formation and/or to assist extraction of the natural resources from the subsurface formation.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857