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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-8 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 4 recites the limitation "the interference frequency array Wr" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites “selecting all interference frequency arrays Wr”, however claim 4 only depends on claim 1. For examination purposes, “the interference frequency array Wr” recited in claim 4 will be interpreted as “an interference frequency array Wr”.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, therefore claim 5 inherits the same issues as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the Ds" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites “an array Ds”, however claim 6 only depends on claim 1. For examination purposes, “the Ds” recited in claim 6 will be interpreted as “an array Ds”.
Claims 7 and 8 depend on claim 6, therefore claims 7 and 8 inherit the same issues as claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "an attenuation frequency value" in line 1 and “an attenuation coefficient” in line 2 of the claim. Claim 6 also recites “an attenuation coefficient” and “attenuating a frequency spectrum value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making it unclear whether the attenuation frequency and attenuation coefficient recited in claim 7 are the same as the ones recited in claim 6. For examination purposes, “an attenuation frequency value" and “an attenuation coefficient” recited in claim 7 will be interpreted as being the same as the ones in claim 6.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A magnetotelluric impedance estimation method, comprising following steps:
Step 1, performing Fourier transform on electromagnetic time series data of a plurality of electromagnetic field components to obtain a frequency spectrum array corresponding to each of electromagnetic field components;
Step 2, identifying an interference frequency of each of electromagnetic field components according to the frequency spectrum array;
Step 3, merging the interference frequency and a deviation value;
Step 4, attenuating the frequency spectrum array using the merged interference frequency and deviation value;
Step 5, recovering the electromagnetic time series data using the attenuated frequency spectrum array, so as to obtain a transform result; and
Step 6, performing magnetotelluric impedance estimation according to the transform result.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mathematical concept and mental process, namely a series of calculations and decisions using electromagnetic data to estimate magnetotelluric impedance.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims 2-7 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 additionally recites “electromagnetic field components are at least two of Ex, Ey, Hx, Hy, and Hz” which only determines which values are used in the estimation method, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “computing”, “filtering”, “calculating” and “selecting” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “merging” and “calculating” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 5 adds the recited “maximum deviation value” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “acquiring a number N of elements”, “acquiring an i-th frequency”, “calculating”, “attenuating”, and “determining” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 7 additionally recites “attenuation frequency value … is the same” and “attenuation coefficient … is the same” which only states that certain values are equivalent, as such it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 8 adds the recited “inverse correlation” and “calculation formula” to the abstract idea limitations.
None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-8 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (Luo CN 111856590 A) in view of Ceng (CN 104570131 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Luo teaches a magnetotelluric impedance estimation method (Para 2: “a method for suppressing ocean wave magnetic interference in marine magnetotelluric detection”), comprising following steps:
Step 1, performing Fourier transform on
Step 2, identifying an interference frequency of each of electromagnetic field components according to the frequency spectrum array (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4; Para 12: “Select and read the marine magnetotelluric field data that participates in the suppression of ocean wave magnetic interference” and Para 63: “Figure 3 shows the time series (top) of the noiseless signal (noiseless Hy), the wave-induced magnetic interference, and the noisy signal (noisy Hy)” and “Figure 4 shows the comparison results between the filtered output signal and the noise-free signal”. The examiner notes that Luo is teaching a method of filtering interference from electromagnetic signals. Fig. 3 shows the identified interference and Fig. 4 shows the signal without interference.);
Step 3, merging the interference frequency and a deviation value (Para 51: “Based on the correlation between the input signal E and the effective signal in the reference signal H, and combined with the statistical characteristics of the signal and noise changing over time, the filter parameters from the previous moment are used for iterative calculation, and the filter parameters C at the current moment are automatically adjusted according to the following formula”. The examiner notes that input signal E contains interference frequencies and residual ε is interpreted as a deviation value);
Step 4, attenuating the frequency spectrum array using the merged interference frequency and deviation value (Para 54: “Based on the relationship between the filter parameter C and the electric field E and magnetic field H, the predicted signal H′ is reconstructed according to the following formula”. The examiner notes that H’ is interpreted as the attenuated spectrum. The examiner notes that filter parameter C was calculated with the interference frequencies and deviation value.);
Step 5, recovering the electromagnetic time series data using the attenuated frequency spectrum array, so as to obtain a transform result (Para 63: “Finally, the inverse Fourier transform of E is performed to obtain the time series of the electric field”); and
Step 6, performing magnetotelluric impedance estimation according to the transform result (Para 64: “Therefore, impedance estimation is performed on the filtered output signal”).
Luo does not explicitly teach electromagnetic time series data of a plurality of electromagnetic field components to obtain a frequency spectrum array corresponding to each of electromagnetic field components.
Ceng teaches electromagnetic time series data of a plurality of electromagnetic field components to obtain a frequency spectrum array corresponding to each of electromagnetic field components (Para 11: “The electromagnetic field frequency domain signals of four components are obtained”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luo with the method of Ceng by replacing the magnetic field time series of Luo with the electromagnetic time series of Ceng. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the magnetotelluric impedance by using electromagnetic field components.
Regarding Claim 2, Luo in view of Ceng teach the limitations of claim 1, but Luo does not explicitly teach wherein the electromagnetic field components are at least two of Ex, Ey, Hx, Hy and Hz, wherein Ex is an electric field signal component in an X direction, Ey is an electric field signal component in a Y direction, Hx is a magnetic field signal component in the X direction, Hy is a magnetic field signal component in the Y direction, Hz is a magnetic field signal component in a Z direction, the X direction and the Y direction are horizontal directions and orthogonal to each other, and the Z direction is a vertical direction; the electromagnetic time series data are sampling point data of each of electromagnetic field components collected according to a predetermined sampling rate.
Ceng teaches wherein the electromagnetic field components are at least two of Ex, Ey, Hx, Hy and Hz, wherein Ex is an electric field signal component in an X direction, Ey is an electric field signal component in a Y direction, Hx is a magnetic field signal component in the X direction, Hy is a magnetic field signal component in the Y direction, Hz is a magnetic field signal component in a Z direction, the X direction and the Y direction are horizontal directions and orthogonal to each other, and the Z direction is a vertical direction (Para 11: “The four components include electric field in the x direction, electric field in the y direction, magnetic field in the x direction, and magnetic field in the y direction”);
the electromagnetic time series data are sampling point data of each of electromagnetic field components collected according to a predetermined sampling rate (Para 108: “the electromagnetic field time domain signal of the corresponding component is divided into multiple segments in the time domain”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view Ceng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomsen (US 20060203613 A1), Castleman (US 20200400856 A1), and Ling (Ling, Z., Wang, P., Wan, Y. et al. “Effective denoising of magnetotelluric (MT) data using a combined wavelet method”. Acta Geophys. Vol. 67, 813–824 (2019)).
Regarding Claim 3, Luo in view of Ceng teach the limitations of claim 1, but Luo does not explicitly teach wherein Step 2 comprises following steps:
Step 2.1, computing a power spectrum array Pi(w) of each of electromagnetic field components according to the frequency spectrum array;
Step 2.2, filtering Pi(w) using a median filtering method to obtain a filtered data Pi1(w);
Step 2.3, calculating a difference ΔPi(w) between Pi(w) and Pi1(w); and
Step 2.4, selecting all interference frequency arrays Wr greater than a threshold Y0 from ΔPi(w), and recording ΔPi(w) corresponding to Wr in a deviation value Dr.
Ceng teaches Step 2.1, computing a power spectrum array Pi(w) of each of electromagnetic field components according to the frequency spectrum array (Para 136: “the power spectrum includes the individual power spectrum of each component of the electromagnetic field frequency domain signal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luo in view of Ceng with the method of Ceng by including the power spectrum computation of Ceng in the invention of Luo. Doing so would improve the estimation of the magnetotelluric impedance.
Thomsen teaches Step 2.2, filtering Pi(w) using a median filtering method to obtain a filtered data Pi1(w) (Para 108: “The data may be median or robust filtered”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luo in view of Ceng with the method of Thomsen by applying the median filter of Thomsen to the power spectrum of Luo in view of Ceng. Doing so would reduce the effect of noise during subsequent calculations.
Castleman teaches Step 2.3, calculating a difference ΔPi(w) between Pi(w) and Pi1(w) (328 Fig. 3B; Para 68: “the modeled interference is subtracted from the EM tracking transmitter signal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the invention of Luo in view of Ceng and Thomsen with the method of Castleman by applying the teachings of Castleman to subtract the median filter power spectrum of Luo in view of Ceng and Thomsen from the power spectrum of Luo in view of Ceng and Thomsen. Doing so would assist in identifying outliers in the power spectrum.
Ling teaches Step 2.4, selecting all interference frequency arrays Wr greater than a threshold Y0 from ΔPi(w), and recording ΔPi(w) corresponding to Wr in a deviation value Dr (Para Selection of the Threshold Rule: “A threshold is applied to the wavelet coefficients to determine how such coefficients will be attenuated or singled out to eliminate or reduce the noise distributed among the raw MT data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the invention of Luo in view of Ceng, Thomsen, and Castleman with the method of Ling by applying a threshold as taught by Ling to the difference between the median power spectrum and the power spectrum of Luo in view of Ceng, Thomsen, and Castleman. Doing so would allow identification of noise and interference frequencies.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view Ceng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomsen.
Regarding Claim 6, Luo in view of Ceng teach the limitations of claim 1, but Luo in view of Ceng does not explicitly teach wherein Step 4 comprises following steps: Step 4.1, acquiring a number N of elements in an interference frequency Ws, and initializing i=1; Step 4.2, acquiring an i-th frequency Wi in the Ws and an i-th deviation value Di in the Ds; Step 4.3, calculating an attenuation coefficient Ri using the deviation value Di; Step 4.4, attenuating a frequency spectrum value Ai corresponding to each electromagnetic field component frequency Wi of the electromagnetic field, that is, Ai=Ai*Ri; and Step 4.5, determining a value of i, in a case that i is equal to N, completing an attenuation of each frequency spectrum array, in a case that i is unequal to N, setting i=i+1, and proceeding to Step 4.2 for continuous processing.
Thomsen teaches Step 4.1, acquiring a number N of elements in an interference frequency Ws, and initializing i=1 (605 Fig. 6; Para 90: “the input data will be read or otherwise accessed”);
Step 4.2, acquiring an i-th frequency Wi in the Ws and an i-th deviation value Di in the Ds (615 Fig. 6; Para 92: “Next, a reference frequency (i.e. a specific angular frequency, in units of inverse natural time) will be selected 615 for the event (arrival) under consideration”. The examiner notes that the reference frequency of Thomsen is being interpreted as the claimed deviation value);
Step 4.3, calculating an attenuation coefficient Ri using the deviation value Di (Para 93: “The preferred method of correcting for attenuation and dispersion at each natural frequency is via a convolution (filtering) using a filter whose Fourier-domain representation is”. The examiner notes that the reference frequency is used to calculate coefficient
V
0
);
Step 4.4, attenuating a frequency spectrum value Ai corresponding to each electromagnetic field component frequency Wi of the electromagnetic field, that is, Ai=Ai*Ri (Para 93: “The preferred method of correcting for attenuation and dispersion at each natural frequency is via a convolution (filtering) using a filter whose Fourier-domain representation is”); and
Step 4.5, determining a value of i, in a case that i is equal to N, completing an attenuation of each frequency spectrum array, in a case that i is unequal to N, setting i=i+1, and proceeding to Step 4.2 for continuous processing (The examiner notes that Thomsen is teaching a process to attenuate for each frequency which is interpreted as being an iterative process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luo in view of Ceng with the method of Thomsen by adding the attenuation process of Thomsen to the method of Luo in view of Ceng. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the magnetotelluric impedance estimation by attenuating the measured electromagnetic data.
Regarding Claim 7, Luo in view of Ceng and Thomsen teach the limitations of claim 6, and Luo in view of Ceng and Thomsen teach wherein an attenuation frequency value of each of electromagnetic field components is the same, and an attenuation coefficient at the same frequency of each of electromagnetic field components is the same (The examiner notes that the equations of Thomsen for calculating attenuation frequency and attenuation coefficient would result in the claimed limitation).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 4, 5, and 8 distinguish over the prior art made of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 4, Luo in view of Ceng do not explicitly teach wherein Step 3 comprises following steps: Step 3.1, merging the interference frequency array Wr of each of electromagnetic field components into an array Ws by union, and only keeping one of same frequency values in Ws; and Step 3.2, calculating a synthetic deviation value of each frequency according to an order of frequencies in the Ws array, and storing the synthetic deviation values in an array Ds in sequence.
Zhang (Chao Zhang, Mirko van der Baan; “A denoising framework for microseismic and reflection seismic data based on block matching”. Geophysics 2018; 83 (5): V283–V292) teaches aggregating groups of data after performing a denoising method (Para Aggregation: “After processing all groups, the processed block estimates are returned to their original positions. Filtered data portions are likely to have been matched with multiple reference windows”).
Zhang does not teach merging the interference frequency array Wr of each of electromagnetic field components into an array Ws by union or calculating a synthetic deviation value of each frequency.
None of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests “merging the interference frequency array Wr of each of electromagnetic field components into an array Ws by union, and only keeping one of same frequency values in Ws; and calculating a synthetic deviation value of each frequency according to an order of frequencies in the Ws array, and storing the synthetic deviation values in an array Ds in sequency”.
Dependent Claim 5 distinguishes over the prior art due to dependence upon claim 4.
Regarding Claim 8, Luo in view of Ceng and Thomsen do not explicitly teach wherein Ri and Di have an inverse correlation, and calculation formula of Ri is Ri = 10-Di.
None of the prior art teaches of fairly suggests “Ri and Di have an inverse correlation, and calculation formula of Ri is Ri = 10-Di.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (KR 101447709 B1) teaches analyzing magnetic survey data (Para 1) by performing a Fourier transformation (Para 36), determining a threshold frequency (Para 42), filtering based on that threshold (Para 42), and performing an inverse Fourier transformation (Para 45).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, 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 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
