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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-14 are directed to a method, claims 15-25 are directed to using a system to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method, comprising:
receiving, using at least one processor, a first data associated with waves propagating in a seismic structure;
selecting, using the at least one processor, a first transform to be applied to the first data;
determining, using the least one processor, whether the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform to optimize sparsity or rank minimization;
if the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform, applying, using the at least one processor, the first transform to the first data to produce a second data;
calculating, using the at least one processor and the second data, at least one Green's function associated with the first data; and
predicting, using the at least one processor and the at least one Green's function, material properties throughout the seismic structure to facilitate exploratory and/or production operations.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“receiving, using at least one processor, a first data associated with waves propagating in a seismic structure” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“selecting, using the at least one processor, a first transform to be applied to the first data” is directed to mental step of manipulating data.
“determining, using the least one processor, whether the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform to optimize sparsity or rank minimization” is directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“if the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform, applying, using the at least one processor, the first transform to the first data to produce a second data” is direct to math because it describes the core definition of a mathematical transformation or a function.
“calculating, using the at least one processor and the second data, at least one Green's function associated with the first data” is direct to math.
“predicting, using the at least one processor and the at least one Green's function, material properties throughout the seismic structure to facilitate exploratory and/or production operations” is directed to math because theses material properties are represented mathematically as spatially varying coefficients in a wave equation. Because rocks can be anisotropic, these properties are often modeled using hugh-dimensional arrays called tensors.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " if the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform, applying, using the at least one processor, the first transform to the first data to produce a second data; calculating, using the at least one processor and the second data, at least one Green's function associated with the first data; and predicting, using the at least one processor and the at least one Green's function, material properties throughout the seismic structure to facilitate exploratory and/or production operations” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“receiving, using at least one processor, a first data associated with waves propagating in a seismic structure” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“selecting, using the at least one processor, a first transform to be applied to the first data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, using the least one processor, whether the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform to optimize sparsity or rank minimization” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“if the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform, applying, using the at least one processor, the first transform to the first data to produce a second data”
“calculating, using the at least one processor and the second data, at least one Green's function associated with the first data”
“predicting, using the at least one processor and the at least one Green's function, material properties throughout the seismic structure to facilitate exploratory and/or production operations” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“receiving, using at least one processor, a first data associated with waves propagating in a seismic structure” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“selecting, using the at least one processor, a first transform to be applied to the first data” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, using the least one processor, whether the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform to optimize sparsity or rank minimization” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“if the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform, applying, using the at least one processor, the first transform to the first data to produce a second data”
“calculating, using the at least one processor and the second data, at least one Green's function associated with the first data”
“predicting, using the at least one processor and the at least one Green's function, material properties throughout the seismic structure to facilitate exploratory and/or production operations” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 is similar to claim 1, therefore the rejection of claim 13 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system for performing multidimensional deconvolution, the system comprising: one or more computing device processors; and one or more computing device memories, coupled to the one or more computing device processors, the one or more computing device memories storing instructions executed by the one or more computing device processors, wherein the instructions are configured to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 15 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 15.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14, and 16-25 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-25 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-20, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haindl et al. ("Handling gaps in acquisition geometries- Improving Marchenko-based imaging using sparsity-promoting inversion and joint inversion of time-lapse data")(IDS record 09/24/2025).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Haindl et al. disclose a computer system and method (see ABSTRACT and par. "MARCHENKO EQUATIONS", "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY'/, comprising:
receiving, using at least one processor (note that the realization of the disclosed method using a computer system is inherent by the use of computer software to perform the calculations presented in the document, as described in par. ''ACKNOWLEDGMENTS" and "DATA ANO MATERIALS AVAILABILITY" in
page S153), a first data associated with waves propagating in a seismic structure ( see eq. (1) and (2) and page S144, col. 2: 'where K( ...) is the measured and Fourier-transformed reflection response", and see R in eq. (3), (5), and see fig. 2 );
selecting, using the at least one processor, a first transform to be applied to the first data ( see the transform Sand 0s in eq. (5) and the part of the par. "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY" in col. 1 of page S145);
determining, using the least one processor, whether the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform to optimize sparsity or rank minimization ( as described in the part of the par. "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY" in col. 1 of page S145, the transform S and θs describes, i.e. "reveals", the sparsity structure of the measured reflection response R and provides the Marchenko equations in the minimal restricted form of the eq. (5));
if the first transform is a sparsity or rank revealing transform, applying, using the at least one processor, the first transform to the first data to produce a second data (as described in the part of the par. "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY" in col. 1 of page S145, since the transform reveals the sparsity of the data R, it is applied to the data as 05R in the eq. (5));
calculating, using the at least one processor and the second data, at least one Green's function associated with the first data (the eq. (5) and (6) are used to estimate f which is used in eq. (3) to calculate the Green's function, g and g+, associated with the first data R); and
predicting, using the at least one processor and the at least one Green's function, material properties throughout the seismic structure to facilitate exploratory and /or production operations (see the last sentence in first section of col. 1 of page S145 and see fig. 4, 8, 11, 12).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Haindl et al. disclose wherein receiving the first data includes acquiring particle motion, acceleration, pressure, or velocity information of the waves (abstract, Col.1, pages s145, Col.1, page s146).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Haindl et al. disclose wherein receiving the first data includes acquiring the first data in an acquisition environment with any acquisition design (Col.1, page s144).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Haindl et al. disclose wherein receiving the first data includes acquiring the first data actually or virtually at any location in the earth interior (col.2, page S144, Col.1, page s146).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Haindl et al. disclose wherein receiving the first data includes receiving data from at least one receiver or source (Col.2, page s144, Col.1, page s145, Col.1, page s146).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Haindl et al. disclose wherein the at least one receiver comprises at least one virtual source (Col.2, page s146, Col.1, page s146).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Haindl et al. disclose wherein determining whether the first transform is the sparsity or rank revealing transform includes applying physically driven priors to enhance low-rank or sparsity of the first data in a sparsity or rank revealing transform domain (page s145, see θs in eq. (5)).
Regarding claim 10, Haindl et al. disclose wherein the calculating the at least one Green's function includes calculating the at least one Green's function at a denser grid (the method of Haindl et al. is discretized on a grid, which is inherently denser than grids that are not suited because too coarse).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Haindl et al. disclose wherein determining whether the first transform is the rank revealing transform includes performing matricization of a tensor ((eq. (3) to (7) where the operators are represented in matrix form, hence are "tensors" that are "matricized").
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Haindl et al. disclose wherein performing matricization of the tensor includes determining whether the first data includes wavefield information used to develop the tensor (eq. (3) to (7) where the operators are represented in matrix form, hence are "tensors" that are "matricized").
Regarding claim 13, Haindl et al. disclose a method (see ABSTRACT and par. "MARCHENKO EQUATIONS", "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY', comprising:
receiving, using at least one processor (note that the realization of the disclosed method using a computer system is inherent by the use of computer software to perform the calculations presented in the document, as described in par. ''ACKNOWLEDGMENTS" and "DATA ANO MATERIALS AVAILABILITY" in page S153), a first data associated with waves propagating in a seismic structure (see eq. (1) and (2) and page S144, col. 2: 'where K( ...) is the measured and Fourier-transformed reflection response", and see R in eq. (3), (5), and see fig. 2 );
analyzing, using the at least one processor, the first data to determine its corresponding dimensional information (page S144, col.1);
selecting, using the at least one processor and the dimensional information, a first transform to be applied to the first data (see the transform S and θs in eq. (5) and the part of the par. "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY" in col. 1 of page S145), wherein the first transform comprises a sparsity or rank revealing transform to optimize sparsity or rank minimization in accordance with the dimensional information of the first data (pages s144, col.1, s145, see θs in eq. (5), as described in the part of the par. "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY" in col. 1 of page S145, the transform S and θs describes, i.e. "reveals", the sparsity structure of the measured reflection response R and provides the Marchenko equations in the minimal restricted form of the eq. (5));
applying, using the at least one processor, the first transform to the first data to produce a second data (as described in the part of the par. "GAPS IN ACQUISITION GEOMETRY" in col. 1 of page S145, since the transform reveals the sparsity of the data R, it is applied to the data as 05R in the eq. (5));
calculating, using the at least one processor and the second data, at least one Green's function associated with the first data (the eq. (5) and (6) are used to estimate f which is used in eq. (3) to calculate the Green's function, g and g+, associated with the first data R); and
predicting, using the at least one processor and the at least one Green's function, material properties throughout the seismic structure to facilitate exploratory and/or production operations (see the last sentence in first section of col. 1 of page S145 and see fig. 4, 8, 11, 12).
Regarding claim 14, Haindl et al. disclose wherein selecting the first transform includes extracting four dimension or five dimension wavefield information from the first data (page s144, col.1, 4D).
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haindl et al. ("Handling gaps in acquisition geometries- Improving Marchenko-based imaging using sparsity-promoting inversion and joint inversion of time-lapse data") in view of Kumar et al. ("Enabling large-scale seismic data acquisition, processing and waveform-inversion via rank-minimization")(IDS record 09/24/2025).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Haindl et al. fail to disclose wherein determining whether the first transform is the sparsity or rank revealing transform includes determining whether the first transform transforms the first data into a midpoint-offset (m−h) domain.
Kumar et al. teach determining whether the first transform transforms the first data into a midpoint-offset (m−h) domain (in par. 3.3; page 54, point 3.; par 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4.31, that a transform of the seismic data into a midpoint-offset domain further lowers the rank of the transformed data).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate determining whether the first transform transforms the first data into a midpoint-offset (m−h) domain of Kumar et al. with the system and method of Haindl et al. for the purposes of providing an improved transform data.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Kumar et al. teach determining whether the midpoint-offset (m−h) domain results in a vertical alignment of a plurality of wavefronts (in par. 3.3; page 54, point 3.; par 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4.31, that a transform of the seismic data into a midpoint-offset domain further lowers the rank of the transformed data).
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pool et al. (US 2017/0031045 A1) disclose aata is recorded by sensors while an underground formation is explored, e.g., using a seismic acquisition system that emits and receives waves. A model, which is indicative of primary waves contained in the received data, is derived using a multi-order Green's function. Using the model, an image of the underground formation is generated.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (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 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). 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights