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 .
The amendment filed on May 20, 2026 has been considered.
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 1-3 and 5-16 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.
Claims 1, 14, and 15, “mapping the normalized seismic data includes:
comparing a plurality of polygons of a plurality of virtual surveys to a
polygon defined by a geographic file boundary of the normalized seismic data to obtain a comparison result; and
selecting the parent virtual survey from the plurality of virtual surveys based on the comparison result” is not described in the original disclosure.
For example, original paragraph 0054 discloses “polygons of virtual surveys are compared to a polygon defined by the geographic file boundary to obtain a comparison result. The parent virtual survey is selected from the virtual surveys based on the comparison result. In one or more embodiments, a bounding box is created around the geographic file boundary. The bounding boxes of the parent virtual surveys are compared to the bounding box of the geographic file boundary. The parent virtual survey that has a bounding box encompassing the geographic file boundary of the normalized seismic data is selected.” However, paragraph 0054 does not disclose that the mapping the normalized seismic data includes the above limitations described in the paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 14, and 15 recite an abstract idea of “extracting seismic data from the digital seismic file according to the plurality of parameters of the digital seismic file” (observation/evaluation, mental process), “generate normalized seismic data” (mathematical concept), “scanning the normalized seismic data to obtain metadata that comprises a plurality of geographic file boundaries” (observation/evaluation, mental process), “mapping the normalized seismic data to a parent virtual survey based at least in part on the plurality of geographic file boundaries being in a geographic region of a parent virtual survey” (mental process), comparing a plurality of polygons of a plurality of virtual surveys to a polygon defined by a geographic file boundary of the normalized seismic data to obtain a comparison result (mental process); “selecting the parent virtual survey from the plurality of virtual surveys based on the comparison result” (mental process), “render a visual representation of the normalized seismic data” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/computer) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
[D]etect, via a seismic acquisition vessel, the seismic signal; record the seismic signal in a digital seismic file; performing autodetection of a plurality of parameters of the digital seismic file; storing, in a target store, the normalized seismic data and metadata, the normalized seismic data in a stored relationship with the parent virtual survey in the target store are directed to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
send, from a seismic source, a seismic signal; detect, via a seismic acquisition vessel, the seismic signal; record the seismic signal in a digital seismic file; performing autodetection of a plurality of parameters of the digital seismic file; storing, in a target store, the normalized seismic data and metadata, the normalized seismic data in a stored relationship with the parent virtual survey in the target store are well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims 2-13 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11-13 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 2-5, 7-11, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Further, in claim 15, the computer program product comprising computer readable program code (software) is directed non-statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106).
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method and system comprising mapping the normalized seismic data includes: comparing a plurality of polygons of a plurality of virtual surveys to a polygon defined by a geographic file boundary of the normalized seismic data to obtain a comparison result; and selecting the parent virtual survey from the plurality of virtual surveys based on the comparison result (claims 1, 14, 15) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “the claimed invention recites an improved method performed by structured components (e.g., a "seismic source", a "seismic acquisition vessel") that perform operations in the real world and have tangible and measurable impacts on the real world and simultaneously improve the functioning of the associated computing devices. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, and requests that the rejection be withdrawn.”
Examiner’s position is that while the claims (e.g., claim 1) recite "seismic source", a "seismic acquisition vessel”, the claims also recite “extracting seismic data from the digital seismic file according to the plurality of parameters of the digital seismic file” (observation/evaluation, mental process), “generate normalized seismic data” (mathematical concept), “scanning the normalized seismic data to obtain metadata that comprises a plurality of geographic file boundaries” (observation/evaluation, mental process), “mapping the normalized seismic data to a parent virtual survey based at least in part on the plurality of geographic file boundaries being in a geographic region of a parent virtual survey” (mental process), comparing a plurality of polygons of a plurality of virtual surveys to a polygon defined by a geographic file boundary of the normalized seismic data to obtain a comparison result (mental process); “selecting the parent virtual survey from the plurality of virtual surveys based on the comparison result” (mental process), “render a visual representation of the normalized seismic data” (mental process). These steps are abstract steps as discussed above.
Applicants further argue “claim 1 has been amended to recite, in part, "sending, from a seismic source, a seismic signal," "detecting, via a seismic acquisition vessel, the seismic signal," and "rendering a visual representation of the normalized seismic data." Applicant respectfully submits that such claim elements are integrated into a practical application by providing tangible impacts on real-world systems using the alleged abstract idea. Indeed, by sending the seismic signal, detecting the seismic signal, and rendering a visual display, even if the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), claim 1 "integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.;" See MPEP 2106.05(a).”
Examiner’s position is that "sending, from a seismic source, a seismic signal", "detecting, via a seismic acquisition vessel, the seismic signal" are well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). "[R]endering a visual representation of the normalized seismic data” can be performed via pen and paper, which is an extension of a mental thought. In the claims the abstract idea is not used/applied in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). For example, claim 1 recites “selecting the parent virtual survey from the plurality of virtual surveys based on the comparison result”. After being selected, how is the selected parent virtual survey used/applied in meaningful application?
Applicants further argue “[i]ndependent claim 1 includes limitations, or combinations of limitations, that are missing from the prior art and are not otherwise well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, thus making independent claim 1 novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art. For example, deriving geographic boundaries directly from seismic data and using those boundaries to algorithmically map datasets to a parent virtual survey via polygon comparison during ingestion is not described in the prior art, as explained below.”
Examiner’s position is that “deriving geographic boundaries directly from seismic data and using those boundaries to algorithmically map datasets to a parent virtual survey via polygon comparison during ingestion” is directed to an abstract idea, as discussed above. Accordingly, even if the limitation does not have prior art rejection, it has been held that "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” (see Synopsys).
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gupta et al. (WO 2022/226030) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0099855) and Selvakumar (US 2023/0168403) discloses the claim limitations as discussed in the prior office action. However, the references in combination do not disclose
mapping the normalized seismic data includes:
comparing a plurality of polygons of a plurality of virtual surveys to a
polygon defined by a geographic file boundary of the normalized seismic data to obtain a comparison result; and
selecting the parent virtual survey from the plurality of virtual surveys based on the comparison result.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights