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 § 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 abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites analyzing information content in each patch of mistied grid patches that overlap in an area of interest; generating and enlarging, in areas of overlap of the mistied grid patches, polygons defined by the areas of overlap according to a growth value; ranking, based on information content criteria, the mistied grid patches to identify a top-ranked patch and at least one lower-ranked patch; blanking, based on the ranking, overlapping portions of the at least one lower-ranked mistied grid patch within the enlarged polygons, wherein the top-ranked patch remains unblanked; and generating, by combining unblanked portions of the mistied grid patches, a geological structure map representing a single continuous subsurface geological layer in the area of interest, including regridding the mistied grid patches and interpolating values between the unblanked portions of the mistied grid patches. The claims require observing information content in mistied grid patches, making judgements about the data, and modifying the data based on the observations. The claim limitations can be performed in the human mind and fall into the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-10 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reason.
Independent claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, and independent claim 16 is directed to a computer implemented system, both of which are products and fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 11 and 16 both recite an abstract idea similar to the abstract idea recited in claim 1. The additional element recited in claim 11 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the additional element recited in claim 16 is the processor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
The additional elements recited in claims 11 and 16 both amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the abstract idea recited in claims 11 and 16 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 12-15 depend from claim 11, claims 17-20 depend from claim 16. Claims 12-15 and 17-20 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore claims 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0002194 to Imhof et al. (Imhof) in view of the article “Computer-Aided Structure-Contour Mapping in Support of the Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bedrock Geology Program,” in Digital Mapping Techniques ‘02, Workshop Proceedings: May 19-22, 2002, Salt Lake City, Utah, pages 119-128 (McDonald).
Claims 1, 11 and 16
With regard to analyzing information content in each patch of mistied grid patches that overlap in an area of interest; Imhof teaches generating topologically consistent patches by reducing the surfaces to topologically similar lines and propagation of labels back onto the surface (Fig. 8, steps 83, 84; Fig. 11; pars. 106, 107).
With regard to ranking, based on information content criteria, the mistied grid patches to identify a top-ranked patch and at least one lower-ranked patch; Imhof teaches identifying consistent patches and inconsistencies in the patches (Fig. 8, step 85, pars. 108, 109). Patches without inconsistencies correspond to a top-ranked patches.
With regard to blanking, based on the ranking, overlapping portions of the at least one lower-ranked mistied grid patch, wherein the top-ranked patch remains unblanked; Imhof teaches deletion of inconsistent patches (Fig. 8, steps 85, 86; pars. 108, 109).
With regard to generating, by combining unblanked portions of the mistied grid patches, a geological structure map representing a single continuous subsurface geological layer in the area of interest, including regridding the mistied grid patches and interpolating values between the unblanked portions of the mistied grid patches; Imhof teaches merging patches and fixing holes in the surface (Fig. 8, steps 88, 89; pars. 108, 109).
Imhof does not teach generating and slightly enlarging, in areas of overlap of the mistied grid patches, polygons defined by the areas of overlap and that blanking portions within the enlarged polygons. McDonald teaches expanding a gridding area outside of the gridded area (page 123, second column, second paragraph under the “Mitigation of Edge Effects” heading). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the geological interpretation, as taught by Imhof, to include expanding a gridding area outside of the gridded area, as taught by McDonald, because then edge effects would have been minimized (McDonald, page 123, second column, first and second paragraph under the “Mitigation of Edge Effects” heading).
Imhof teaches a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 35).
Claims 2, 12 and 17
Imhof teaches receiving user input defining limits of the area of interest (par. 155).
Claims 3, 13 and 18
Imhof teaches receiving user input defining the information content criteria (pars. 153, 155).
Claims 4, 14 and 19
Imhof teaches that the information content criteria includes, for each patch of the mistied grid patches, one or more of prior knowledge and assumptions regarding a quality of seismic velocity model, a vintage of seismic data, acquisition information, and processing parameters (pars. 102, 106).
Claims 5, 15, and 20
Imhof teaches transforming the mistied grid patches into a single working coordinate reference system, datums and common units and signage (pars. 23, 101; Fig. 9).
Claim 8
Imhof teaches assessing, using the generated geological structure map, large areas of geological basins for resource distribution (pars. 150, 258).
Claim 9
Imhof teaches that assessing the large areas of geological basins for resource distribution includes assessing the large areas for hydrocarbon traps and sites for carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration and subsurface management of fluids (par. 258).
Claim 10
Imhof teaches that generating the geological structure map includes extrapolating values across gaps between patch boundaries and a boundary of the area of interest when no intervening patch exists in that direction (pars. 123, 219).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant states that the none of claims 1, 11, and 16 can be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant states that the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16 involve rigorous, data-intensive computational operations applied to massive physical seismic data arrays that physically cannot be performed mentally. Applicant states that for example, analyzing the information content of the grid patches cannot be performed mentally. Applicant states that as described in the specification, information content can be determined by a Nyquist criterion threshold, which must be extracted "by Fourier analysis or residual from structural smoothing" and computationally evaluated for orientation randomness. Specification, para. [0031]. Applicant states that the generation of polygons capturing areas of overlap of the mistied grid patches and expanding those polygons cannot be practically formed by the mind of a human or with pen and paper. However, claims 1, 11 and 16 do not provide any details for what the information content is or how it is analyzed. Further, even if the claims included the details for how the information content is analyzed as disclosed in paragraph 31 of the Specification, these analysis methods would fall into the mathematical processes grouping. Observing shapes in an image and drawing or imagining polygons within an area of overlaps is well within the capacity of the human mind.
Applicant states that the subject matter of each of claims 1, 11, and 6 improves the specific technology of digital geological mapping. However, to determine whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the additional elements in the claim are considered (MPEP 2106.04(d), subsection I). Evaluating improvement to a specific technology requires evaluating claimed additional elements as is required with other considerations for whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a), sixth paragraph). Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements to be considered. The additional element recited in claim 11 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the additional element recited in claim 16 is the processor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant states that the claims recite “significantly more” than an abstract idea because they define a specific, non-conventional combination of steps to resolve physical data conflicts. However, as discussed above, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements to be considered. And the additional elements recited in claims 11 and 16 amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer which is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant states that Imhof does not teach ranking valid patches based on information content criteria, nor does it teach selectively blanking overlapping portions of lower-ranked patches while leaving a top-ranked patch unblanked and that instead, Imhof describes a binary topological consistency check to ensure that surfaces do not violate basic geometric rules (e.g., the law of superposition). However, claim 1 as amended recites to identify a top-ranked patch and at least one lower-ranked patch. Imhof teaches identifying consistent patches and inconsistencies in the patches (Fig. 8, step 85, pars. 108, 109). A consistent patch corresponds to a top-ranked patch and an inconsistent patch corresponds to a lower-ranked patch. A binary ranking is still a rank.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 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 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights