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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to under 37 C.F.R. §1.72(b) because the abstract describes the training embodiment, not the active identification embodiment of these claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a model generator configured to,” “an image analysis engine configured to,” “a relevance determination engine configured to,” and “stratigraphic unit containing” in claim(s) 8-14 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
To satisfy the 112(a) written description requirement for a computer-implemented function, the specification must demonstrate possession of the invention by disclose the specific algorithm. Here, the specification fails to show possession of the “relevance determination engine” because it merely states the high-level goal of estimating a likelihood without disclosing the actual mathematical or computational logic required to achieve that result.
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.
Claims 8-14 are 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 limitation “a relevance determination engine configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification must disclose the specific algorithm that the computer executes to perform he function. Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for the “relevance determination engine.” While the specification disclose using “geomorphic differentiation” and “contour change rates,” it provides no algorithmic logic, mathematical weighting scheme, or step-by-step procedure detailing how these inputs are mathematically combined or evaluated to calculate the claimed “likelihood.” Since the specification lacks this algorithm, the bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/940,720 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same core inventive concept the relevance determination engine and its likelihood-scoring mechanism.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract ideas to mathematical concepts and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computer components that implement the abstract ideas without improving computer functionality. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of geological domain context (subsurface hydrogen, surface features, stratigraphic units) constitutes a field-of-use limitation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 123 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
STEP 1 - Statutory Category
Claim 1 is a process. Claim 8 is a machine. Claim 15 is a manufacture (computer program
product). All claims fall within a statutory categories
STEP 2A, PRONG 1 – Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites the following operative steps: (a) Receive training dataset of labeled images, (b) Train an object detection model using the training dataset, (c) Receive a target image, (d) Identify a region using the trained model, (e) Automatically estimate a likelihood of active hydrogen accumulation, (f) Determine whether the likelihood satisfies a threshold, and (g) Output if threshold satisfied
Steps (b) and (d), training and applying an object detection model encompasses
mathematical operations (the mathematical operations underlying ML model training and
inference -weight updates, gradient calculations, forward pass computations). These are
mathematical concepts.
Steps (e) and (f), estimating a likelihood that a detected geological surface feature
indicates active hydrogen accumulation, and comparing it to a threshold, are (under BRI)
evaluations or judgments about geological significance that could be performed by a trained geologist reviewing imagery and field data. These encompass mental processes (evaluation, judgment, opinion about geological significance) as well as mathematical concepts (likelihood estimation, threshold comparison). The pre-grant publication (US 2024/0142661 A1) of spec at ¶¶31-33 frames the active/static distinction in terms that a trained geologist would apply mentally.
Steps (a) and (c) are data gathering- insignificant extra-solution activity. Step (g), outputting the result is also insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, all of the core operative limitations recite abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and/or mental
processes).
Step 2A Prong 1: YES.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2 – Practical Application
The key question is whether the combination of elements, particularly the relevance determination engine using geomorphic differentiation and/or contour rate-of-change, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The independent claims (1, 8, 15) recite the relevance determination engine's likelihood estimation only at a functional level. "Automatically estimating a likelihood" with no claimed technical detail about how that estimation is performed. The claim does not specify what geomorphic features are measured, what algorithm computes the likelihood, or how the threshold is set. Under BRI, "automatically estimating a likelihood" is indistinguishable from a generic instruction to "apply" the abstract idea of geological assessment to a computer. The addition of a threshold gate is a mathematical comparison, which itself is an abstract idea. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025) establishes simply combining a generic ML detection step with another layer of data analysis in a new technical domain does not create a practical application.
The specification does not describe a technical improvement to how image processing, ML inference, or computer functionality is achieved. The asserted improvement is to the results of geological exploration (better target identification). This is a real-world benefit, but not a technical improvement to the underlying technology. See MPEP §2106.05(a) (specification must set forth an improvement to technology, and the claim must reflect that improvement).
The hardware recited (communications circuitry, image analysis engine, model generator, relevance determination engine) are all generic computer components with no specific technical architecture claimed.
For independent claims 1, 8, 15, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional hardware elements are generic, and the relevance determination engine's likelihood estimation is recited entirely functionally without a specific technical implementation. Step 2A Prong 2: NO for independent claims 1, 8, 15.
STEP 2B – Inventive Concept
All additional elements (communications circuitry, image analysis engine, model
generator, relevance determination engine) are generic computer components performing
functions at a high level of generality. Training an ML model, running inference, estimating a
likelihood, and comparing to a threshold are all well-understood, routine, conventional
operations in the ML/computer vision field as of the filing date. No inventive concept
beyond the abstract idea. Step 2B: NO.
Claims
Result
Basis
1, 8, 15 (independent)
Ineligible
Mathematical concepts + mental processes;
additional elements are generic; likelihood
estimation is functional "apply it" instruction
2, 9, 16 (semantic segmentation)
Ineligible
Adds specific model type but does not change the
analysis – still generic ML applied to domain
3, 10, 17 ( orthorectification)
Ineligible
Orthorectification is conventional preprocessing;
does not integrate abstract idea into practical application
4, 11, 18 (geomorphic
differentiation)
Ineligible
"Degree of geomorphic differentiation" is itself a
mental process judgment; field-of-use addition
5, 12, 19 (rate of change in contours)
Ineligible (close call)
Implies technical measurement process but
recited at functional level with no specific technical implementation. Spec ¶[0033] ties this to multi-temporal imagery (InSAR) to detect surface deforms at mm or cm scale. Tracking these small scale topical deformations across multiple data sets cannot be practically performed in the mind.
6-7, 13-14, 20 (stratigraphic data)
Ineligible
Adding geological field-of-use data inputs does not integrate abstract idea into practical application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (Detection of Fairy Circles in UAV Images Using Deep Learning – hereinafter “Zhu”) in view of Moretti et al. (Hydrogen Emanations in Intracratonic Areas: New Guide Lines for Early Exploration Basin Screening – hereinafter “Moretti”) in view of Imhof (US 2015/0254567 A1 – hereinafter “Imhof”) in view of Gaucher (New Perspectives In The Industrial Exploration For Native Hydrogen – hereinafter “Gaucher”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15.
A apparatus for automatically identifying surface features of the Earth (Zhu: "To improve fairy circle detection and localization automatically in aerial images, we here present the use of a convolutional neural network (CNN)." Page 1, Abstract.), the apparatus comprising:
communications circuitry configured to receive a training dataset of labeled images illustrating surface features consistent with subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Zhu: "The samples used in this study are high resolution RGB images taken by UAVs at 2 sites in Namibia. Firstly, FCs were manually labeled and a new contour binary image was generated in the orthomosaic."
Page 2 , Section II (Proposed Method, Data Preparation).);
a model generator configured to train, using the training dataset, an object detection model to identify regions within images containing surface features consistent with subsurface hydrogen accumulation, wherein the communications circuitry is further configured to receive a target image (Zhu: "The proposed network in this paper used 40x40 gray-scale images as input and had four convolutional layers followed by three fully connected layers." Page 2, Section II (Proposed Method, Recognition of Fairy Circles).);
an image analysis engine configured to identify, using the object detection model, a region within the target image containing a surface feature consistent with subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Zhu "To compare different approaches, we used online images of FC fields that we never used when training the model." Page 4, Section III (Results).); and
Zhu does not explicitly teach that fairy circles are “indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation.” However, Moretti, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that fairy circle surface indicators of active subsurface hydrogen emanations, and gives the geomorphological and stratigraphic parameters to evaluate them. (Moretti: "When H2 emanations affect the soils, small depressions and vegetation gaps are observed. These depressions, called fairy circles, have similarities with the pockmark and vent structures recognized for long time in the sea floor when natural gas escapes but also differences." Page 1, Abstract).
Zhu does not explicitly teach “a relevance determination engine configured to: automatically estimate a likelihood that the surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation, and determine whether the estimated likelihood satisfies a predetermined threshold; wherein the communications circuitry is further configured to, in an instance in which the estimated likelihood satisfies the predetermined threshold, output an indication that the surface feature.” However, Imhof, in the same field of endeavor, teaches “a relevance determination engine configured to: automatically estimate a likelihood that the surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation, and determine whether the estimated likelihood satisfies a predetermined threshold (Imhof: "Prospectivity is a prospect or lead predictor based on indications of multiple hydrocarbon system elements. Prospectivity is a measure or estimate of the probability of encountering reservoir rock having properties that support hydrocarbon accumulations, a sizeable trap, adequate seal, source rock, ... and one or more geophysical indications for hydrocarbons or charge." Paragraph [0061]. "In a preferred embodiment, scores are computed for some analysis units that are used to rate and rank these units. An exemplary score may be prospectivity ... either by direct computation for individual analysis units or by scaling up prospectivity from the individual samples to analysis units." Paragraph [0119]. Moretti: "Various geomorphological characteristics allow us to differentiate depressions of the ground due to gas emissions from karstic dolines. The more relevant ones are their slope and the ratio diameter vs. depth." Page 1, Abstract.); wherein the communications circuitry is further configured to, in an instance in which the estimated likelihood satisfies the predetermined threshold (Imhof: "In one embodiment, the interpreter specifies an areal threshold for closure. If a sample inside an analysis units exceed this threshold, then the ‘has FoldShape AntiShape’ property is assigned to this analysis unit." Paragraph [0121].), output an indication that the surface feature” (Imhof: "One particular manner of presenting the seismic analysis units that satisfy any given query is by visually coding the successful units, for example by highlighting those units with colors or shading the units with textures ... " Paragraph [0125].). Furthermore, Gaucher explicitly teaches that the industry should apply these standard prospectivity frameworks to native hydrogen exploration (Gaucher: "Geologists should now adopt the tripartite concept of 'source rock, reservoir, and trap' in the exploration for native hydrogen and abiotic gases." Page 1 (Internal journal Page 8, right column, paragraph 5).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the automated fairy-circle image detection of Zhu to the exploration subsurface hydrogen, because Moretti explicitly teaches that these specify features are highly indicative of hydrogen accumulations. It would also have been further obvious to evaluate those identified hydrogen targets using the prospectivity scoring and thresholding engine of Imhof, motivated by Gaucher’s directive to adopt standard prospectivity frameworks from oil exploration to native hydrogen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would naturally program Imhof’s algorithmic engine to evaluate the specific hydrogen screening parameters taught by Moretti to calculate a likelihood score and filter the targets, thereby achieving a fully automated and reliable basin screening tool.
Claims 2, 9, and 16.
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the object detection model comprises a semantic segmentation model, wherein the model generator is configured to train the semantic segmentation model to identify every pixel of an image corresponding to surface features consistent with subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Zhu: “pixel-level CNN models” Page 6.), and wherein the image analysis engine is configured to identify every pixel in the target image that corresponds to the surface feature (Zhu: “pixel-level CNN models [7] are considered to be another option for high detection and segmentation accuracy” Page 6. A pixel-level CNN model for segmentation is synonymous with a semantic segmentation model, as both operate to classify an image at the pixel level (i.e. assigning a class lebel, like “hydrogen feature” or “background” to each pixel).).
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the remaining elements recited in claims 2, 9, and 16 and renders the claim(s) obvious for at least the reasons discussed in claim 1, 8, and 15 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 3, 10, and 17.
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the image analysis engine is further configured to perform orthorectification on the target image to remove distortion prior to identifying the region within the target image containing a surface feature consistent with subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Zhu teaches performing analysis on orthorectified imagery, stating: "Firstly, FCs were manually labeled and a new contour binary image was generated in the orthomosaic." Page 2, Section II. Examiner note: Generating an orthomosaic requires performing orthorectification to remove distortion).
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the remaining elements recited in claims 3, 10, and 17 and renders the claim(s) obvious for at least the reasons discussed in claim 1, 8, and 15 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 4, 11, and 18.
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the relevance determination engine is configured to automatically estimate the likelihood that the surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation by: determining a degree of geomorphic differentiation between the surface feature and one or more surrounding surface features; and estimating the likelihood that the surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation based on the degree of geomorphic differentiation between the surface feature and the one or more surrounding surface features (Moretti: "Various geomorphological characteristics allow us to differentiate depressions of the ground due to gas emissions from karstic dolines. The more relevant ones are their slope and the ratio diameter vs. depth."Page 1, Abstract.).
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the remaining elements recited in claims 4, 11, and 18 and renders the claim(s) obvious for at least the reasons discussed in claim 1, 8, and 15 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 6, 13, and 20.
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the relevance determination engine is further configured to identify a geographical location of the surface feature, wherein the communications circuitry is further configured to receive information about a stratigraphic unit containing the identified geographical location of the surface feature, and wherein the relevance determination engine is configured to automatically estimate the likelihood that the surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation by estimating the likelihood that the surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation based on the received information regarding the stratigraphic unit (Moretti teaches relying on underlying stratigraphic data to determine the likelihood of hydrogen: "These H2 emitting structures are always observed, up to now, above Archean or Neoproterozoic cratons ... " Page 1, Abstract.).
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the remaining elements recited in claims 6, 13, and 20 and renders the claim(s) obvious for at least the reasons discussed in claim 1, 8, and 15 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 7 and 14.
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the information about the stratigraphic unit includes at least one of: geological characteristics of the stratigraphic unit; hydrogen migration pathways to the geographical location of the surface feature; hydrogen traps or seals proximal to the geographical location of the surface feature; or a thermal maturity or present temperature conditions of one or more portions of the stratigraphic unit (Moretti teaches utilizing geological characteristics of the unit, " ... it suggests that anoxia at the time the sedimentation and iron content play a key role in the H2 sourcing." (Page 1, Abstract). Gaucher explicitly teaches evaluating the stratigraphic unit for traps and seals: "Geologists should now adopt the tripartite concept of 'source rock, reservoir, and trap' in the exploration for native hydrogen ... " (Page 1).).
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the remaining elements recited in claims 7 and 14 and renders the claim(s) obvious for at least the reasons discussed in claim 1, 8, and 15 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Anantrasirichai et al. (Application of Machine Learning to Classification of Volcanic Deformation in Routinely Generated lnSAR Data).
Claims 5, 12, and 19.
The combination of Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the relevance determination engine is configured to automatically estimate the likelihood that the surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Moretti: "When H2 emanations affect the soils, small depressions and vegetation gaps are observed. These depressions, called fairy circles, have similarities with the pockmark and vent structures recognized for long time in the sea floor when natural gas escapes but also differences." Page 1, Abstract) by: (Imhof: Paragraphs [0061], [0119]. Moretti: "Various geomorphological characteristics allow us to differentiate depressions of the ground due to gas emissions from karstic dolines. The more relevant ones are their slope and the ratio diameter vs. depth." Page 1, Abstract.)
Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching “determining a rate of change in one or more contours of the surface feature … based on the determined rate of change in the one or more contours of the surface feature.” However, Anantrasirichai in the same field of endeavor teaches “determining a rate of change in one or more contours of the surface feature … based on the determined rate of change in the one or more contours of the surface feature” (Anantrasirichai: “new ways of automatically searching through large volumes volcanic activity. The proposed method works on wrapped interferograms displayed as fringes each representing a set amount of displacement equal to half the radar wavelength” Page 2. In remote sensing, an InSAR “fringe” is literally a contour line of equal phase change. Evaluating the number and shape of these fringes determines the rate of change in the contour (the motion/deformation) of the surface feature over time. Figure 8 and 9 teach that “bright green contours are where … [e]ach color cycle (fringe) represents 2.8 cm of displacement.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu, Moretti, Imhof, Gaucher, and Anantrasirichai before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to automate the hydrogen framework of Moretti using the deep-learning image detection model of Zhu, and to evaluate the likelihood of those identified targets using the automated prospective scoring of Imhof, motivated by Gaucher’s directive to apply standard prospective frameworks to native hydrogen exploration. Furthermore, to improve the accuracy of the relevance determination engine, it would have been obvious to incorporate the automated InSAR deformation analysis taught by Anantrasirichai to calculate the rate of change in the surface contours (fringes) of the detected features. Anantrasirichai ‘s temporal surface tracking of ground deformation is a well-established standard for determining whether a subsurface gas accumulation is actively changing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied, yet considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed on the PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674