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 detecting shallow subsurface anomalies in a subsurface formation, the method comprising:
obtaining seismic data for the subsurface formation;
forming one or more seismic gathers by sorting seismic traces from the seismic data into a plurality of bins based on a midpoint and an offset between a source and a receiver associated with the seismic traces;
for bins of the plurality of bins, estimating residual refraction statics characterizing the shallow subsurface anomalies by iteratively:
encoding, by a classical computer, a pair of discrete time shifts which are represented by a single binary variable per seismic trace to form a binary partition;
determining, by the classical computer, cross-correlations between the seismic traces in the bins to form an objective function for the binary partition based on the encoded discrete time shifts, wherein the objective function for the binary partition includes a constant term; and
determining, by a quantum annealing machine, a set of discrete time-shifts representing the residual refraction statics that maximize stack power for the bins by maximizing the objective function, wherein a next iteration is initialized, by the classical computer, with a different set of time-shifts than a current iteration; and
performing refraction-based surface-consistent phase correction to each seismic trace by applying the estimated residual refraction statics.”
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 8 and 18).
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:
obtaining seismic data for the subsurface formation; forming one or more seismic gathers; for bins of the plurality of bins; a classical computer; a quantum annealing machine.
The additional element “obtaining seismic data for the subsurface formation” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “forming one or more seismic gathers”; “for bins of the plurality of bins”; and “a quantum annealing machine” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic classical computer or 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, obtaining seismic data for the subsurface formation is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining 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).
For example, forming one or more seismic gathers by sorting seismic traces from the seismic data into a plurality of bins is disclosed by “Colombo US 20220342101”, FIG. 1B, [0012], [0054]); and “Colombo US 20210190983”, Abstract, [0004], [0006], [0016], [0017], FIG. 3.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 “Colombo US 20220342101”, “Garceran US 20160334529”, “Colombo US 20210190983”, “Balmakhtar US 20250097709”; “Colombo US 20180321405”, “Colombo US 20230125277”, "Dukalski1 et al. (Quantum Computer-assisted Global Optimization in Geophysics Illustrated with stack-power Maximization for Refraction Residual Statics Estimation; GeoScienceWorld - Geophysics; published 2/14/2023)", and “Linde (Quantum Annealing for Seismic Imaging, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands; published 11/11/2021)”.
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, Colombo teaches at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Colombo, [0023], [0101]);
obtaining seismic data for the subsurface formation (Colombo, [0050]);
forming one or more seismic gathers by sorting seismic traces from the seismic data into a plurality of bins based on a midpoint and an offset between a source and a receiver associated with the seismic traces (Colombo, FIG. 1B, [0012], [0054]).
Balmakhtar teaches a hybrid classical and quantum solver (Balmakhtar, [0034]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “for bins of the plurality of bins, estimating residual refraction statics characterizing the shallow subsurface anomalies by iteratively: encoding, by a classical computer, a pair of discrete time shifts which are represented by a single binary variable per seismic trace to form a binary partition”;
“determining, by the classical computer, cross-correlations between the seismic traces in the bins to form an objective function for the binary partition based on the encoded discrete time shifts, wherein the objective function for the binary partition includes a constant term”; and
“determining, by a quantum annealing machine, a set of discrete time-shifts representing the residual refraction statics that maximize stack power for the bins by maximizing the objective function, wherein a next iteration is initialized, by the classical computer, with a different set of time-shifts than a current iteration”; and
“performing refraction-based surface-consistent phase correction to each seismic trace by applying the estimated residual refraction statics” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 8, and 15.
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.
“Etgen US 20160377755” teaches “The instant invention is designed to provide an adaptive approach to removing short-period time/phase distortions within a downward-continuation process that is a key component of seismic migration algorithms Using techniques analogous to residual statics corrections that are used in standard seismic processing, one inventive approach estimates and removes the effects of short wavelength velocity disruptions, thereby creating clearer seismic images of the subsurface of the earth. Additionally, the instant method will provide an updated velocity model that can be used to obtain further image improvement.”
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- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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 2857