CTNF 18/594,641 CTNF 82020 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas as indicated by in-line comments below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. 1. A method comprising: accessing data (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity) that include seismic data of a subsurface region (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) ; automatically identifying a type of acquisition footprint artefact to reduce based at least in part on at least a portion of the data (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) ; automatically extracting acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters based at least in part on the type of acquisition footprint artefact (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) ; and reducing the acquisition footprint artefact using the acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the type of acquisition footprint artefact includes a linear type (merely further details of abstract limitations) . 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the linear type corresponds to a marine streamer survey that utilizes sail lines (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) . 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the type of acquisition footprint artefact includes a non-linear type (merely further details of abstract limitations) . 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the non-linear type corresponds to a marine streamer survey that utilizes curves (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) . 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the type of acquisition footprint artefact includes a sparse type (merely further details of abstract limitations) . 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the sparse type corresponds to an ocean-bottom node survey (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) . 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the reducing includes altering a gradient of a full waveform inversion (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the altering occurs iteratively during the full waveform inversion (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the altering occurs iteratively during the full waveform inversion for each iteration of the full waveform inversion (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the automatically extracting acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters includes determining one or more angles using wavenumbers (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the automatically extracting acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters includes determining one or more spacings using wavenumbers (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the automatically extracting acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters includes determining a local window size (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the automatically extracting acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters includes determining a low-wavenumber limit for preserving signal in the seismic data (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the seismic data of the subsurface region include seismic data from multiple seismic surveys (merely further details of ineligible subject matter) . 16. The method of claim 15, comprising automatically identifying different types of acquisition footprint artefacts to reduce based at least in part on at least a portion of the data and automatically extracting acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters based at least in part on the different types of acquisition footprint artefacts (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 17. The method of claim 16, comprising reducing the different types of acquisition footprint artefacts using the acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the reducing the acquisition footprint artefact using the acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters occurs during execution of an iterative full waveform inversion to improve performance of the iterative full waveform inversion (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . Regarding claim 19, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following. 19. A system comprising: a processor (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) ; memory operatively coupled to the processor (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity) ; and processor-executable instructions stored in the memory to instruct the system (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) to: (limitations similar to those of claim 1) . Regarding claim 20, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following. 20. One or more computer-readable storage media including computer-executable instructions executable (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity) to instruct a computing system (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) to: (limitations similar to those of claim 1) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 6, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozhevin et al. (NPL; “Automatic Acquisition Footprint Attenuation: Deep Learning Approach”; copy submitted by Applicant, 7/28/25) . Regarding claim 1, Kozhevin et al. disclose a method comprising: accessing data (read and convert data; see page 4, paragraph “Our method...”) that include seismic data (seismic cube; supra ) of a subsurface region; ... identifying a type of acquisition footprint artefact (adapting to various footprint configurations; see page 3, 1 st paragraph) to reduce based at least in part on at least a portion of the data (see page 4, paragraph, “Our method...”) ; ... extracting acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters based at least in part on the type of acquisition footprint artefact (this is inherent in the model’s adaptation to a given footprint configuration; see page 3, 1 st paragraph) ; and reducing the acquisition footprint artefact (suppressing the footprint noise; see page 3, 1 st paragraph) using the acquisition footprint artefact reduction parameters (see page 3, 1 st paragraph; this is met by the use of a model that inherently derives the parameter in its adaptation to various footprint configurations, and is used to suppress the footprint noise) . Kozhevin et al. do not disclose that the identification and extraction are done automatically. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Kozhevin et al. such that the identification and extraction were done automatically, because it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Regarding claim 6, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the type of acquisition footprint artefact includes a sparse type (see page 2, 1 st paragraph) . Regarding claim 15, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the seismic data of the subsurface region include seismic data from multiple seismic surveys (see page 2, 2 nd paragraph) . Regarding claim 19, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following. Kozhevin et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations: 19. A system comprising: a processor; memory operatively coupled to the processor; and processor-executable instructions stored in the memory to instruct the system to: (limitations similar to those of claim 1) . Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known and common knowledge include a processor; memory operatively coupled to the processor; and processor-executable instructions stored in the memory to instruct the system to carry out a given method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Kozhevin et al. to incorporate a processor; memory operatively coupled to the processor; and processor-executable instructions stored in the memory to instruct the system to perform the method, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. Regarding claim 20, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following. Kozhevin et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations: 20. One or more computer-readable storage media including computer-executable instructions executable to instruct a computing system to: (limitations similar to those of claim 1) . Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known and common knowledge include computer-readable storage media including computer-executable instructions executable to instruct a computing system to carry out a given method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Kozhevin et al. to incorporate computer-readable storage media including computer-executable instructions executable to instruct a computing system to perform the method, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krebs et al. (2011/0276320) is cited for disclosing sparse artifact correction. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM. 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /GEOFFREY T EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 4 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 7 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 8 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/594,641 Page 9 Art Unit: 2852
Prosecution Insights