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
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for performing seismic imaging of a subterranean formation, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, data representing a plurality of seismic traces corresponding to seismic waves propagating in the subterranean formation;
determining, from the plurality of seismic traces, travel time data representing observed travel times of refracted energy and a data covariance matrix representing uncertainty associated with the observed travel times for the plurality of seismic traces;
determining, based on the travel time data, a prior velocity model and a prior model covariance matrix for a plurality of common midpoint locations associated with the plurality of seismic traces, wherein the prior velocity model represents an initial estimate of velocities for the plurality of common midpoint locations and the prior model covariance matrix represents an uncertainty of the prior velocity model;
generating an objective function based on the travel time data, the data covariance matrix, the prior velocity model, and the prior model covariance matrix;
determining, by minimizing the objective function, values for a plurality of one- dimensional velocity models and a set of accuracy values associated with the plurality of one-dimensional velocity models;
generating, based on the values for the plurality of one-dimensional velocity models and the set of accuracy values, a pseudo-3D model and a set of accuracy values for the pseudo-3D model; and
generating, based on the pseudo-3D model and the set of accuracy values for the pseudo-3D model, a seismic image representing the subterranean formation.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claims 13 and 19).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
receiving, by a computer system, data representing a plurality of seismic traces corresponding to seismic waves propagating in the subterranean formation.
The additional element “receiving data representing a plurality of seismic traces corresponding to seismic waves propagating in the subterranean formation” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. In addition, a generic computer is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, receiving data representing a plurality of seismic traces corresponding to seismic waves propagating in the subterranean formation is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 13 and 19 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Liu US 20200183035”, “Dasgupta US 20090299637”, “Xia US 20210165119”, “Khadhraoui US 20090259406”, “Khadhraoui US 20100262373”, “Mickaele US 20070055447”, and “Shi et al. (A Layer-Stripping Method for 3D Near-Surface Velocity Model Building Using Seismic First-Arrival Time), Journal of Earth Science, Vol. 26, No. 4, page 502-507, published August 2025”, an NPL furnished by the applicant.
As to claims 1, 13, and 19, Liu teaches at least one processor (FIG. 7, CPU 9902); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (FIG. 7, RAM 9906, ROM 9908; [0092], [0093]) comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, data representing a plurality of seismic traces corresponding to seismic waves propagating in the subterranean formation (Liu, [0004], [0026], [0044]).
Dasgupta teaches determining, from the plurality of seismic traces, travel time data representing observed travel times of refracted energy and a data covariance matrix representing uncertainty associated with the observed travel times for the plurality of seismic traces (Dasgupta, [0020], [0023]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determining, based on the travel time data, a prior velocity model and a prior model covariance matrix for a plurality of common midpoint locations associated with the plurality of seismic traces, wherein the prior velocity model represents an initial estimate of velocities for the plurality of common midpoint locations and the prior model covariance matrix represents an uncertainty of the prior velocity model”;
“generating an objective function based on the travel time data, the data covariance matrix, the prior velocity model, and the prior model covariance matrix”;
“determining, by minimizing the objective function, values for a plurality of one- dimensional velocity models and a set of accuracy values associated with the plurality of one-dimensional velocity models”;
“generating, based on the values for the plurality of one-dimensional velocity models and the set of accuracy values, a pseudo-3D model and a set of accuracy values for the pseudo-3D model”; and
“generating, based on the pseudo-3D model and the set of accuracy values for the pseudo-3D model, a seismic image representing the subterranean formation” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 13, and 19.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Gentilhomme US 20170139065” teaches “Device, medium and method for generating an image of a subsurface of the earth. The method includes generating an ensemble of realizations (M) based on data related to the subsurface; applying an objective function (O) to members (m) of the ensemble of realizations (m) and corresponding estimated data to estimate a mismatch; selecting a best sensitivity matrix (G) from a plurality of sensitivity matrices associated with the objective function (O) and the ensemble of realizations (M); updating realization parameters (mpr), which are used as input for a forward model (f), to calculate the corresponding estimated data, based on the best sensitivity matrix (G); and generating an image of the subsurface based on (1) the data related to the subsurface of the earth and (2) the forward model (f) with updated realization parameters (mpr).”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
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 T 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2863