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 § 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 3 and 10 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 limitation “means” (claim 3, line 4 and claim 10, line 3) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Yes.
Claim 1 recites “a reversed-time migration method for vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data using directional propagation of receiver wavefields, the method comprising: a data gathering step…and a reverse-time migration processing step…to generate migration images is performed”, which is a process.
Step 2, Prong One: Judicial exception? Yes.
Claim 1 recites the steps “a data gathering step…and a reverse-time migration processing step..”, which under BRI, fall within both mental processes and mathematical calculation. The steps may be carried out as a mental process if the algorithm is simple enough, and as a mathematical process if the algorithm is more complicated. Claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited calculating step, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The recited step “a data gathering in which a process of gathering vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey is perform” encompasses a data gathering. It does not recites details how the step is accomplished. The recited step is not performed by any particular machine.
The recited step “reverse-time migration processing step in which a process of performing reverse-time migration based on directional propagation of receiver wavefields on the VCS survey data gathered through the data gathering step to generate migration images is performed” is not performed by any particular device. It encompasses data gathering and insignificant extra solution. The recited step does not recite details how it is accomplished. The “(generated) migration images” are data which are insignificant. The claim does not impose any limits on how the recited step is obtained/accomplished.
Claim 1 when viewed alone or a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further claim 1 when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination does not provide an improvement in vertical cable seismic survey (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Claim 1 is therefore is ineligible.
Claim 2 adds two limitations. Limitation “an image output step in which a process of outputting the migration images ….via a monitor or a display is performed” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the recited “display or monitor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The recited “images” encompasses insignificant extra solution. The recited step “image output step” encompasses insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Limitation “a database construction step…is performed” encompasses data gathering extending the abstract idea merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Further, the external device as recited is not a particular device. It is a tool used to perform the abstract idea.
Both limitations “image output step…” and “database construction step…” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as storing data or outputting migration images) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 3 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea. It is unclear what “VCS survey means” is (see 35 USC 112 rejection above) and it is, as best understood, interpreted as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The recited limitation “VCS survey means” is not a particular device.
Dependent claim 4 adds limitations which are data processing. In addition, the “image generation step” encompasses an insignificant extra solution. The limitation “(calculated) image values” is insignificant extra solution. The use of the recited “calculated image values” is unlimited. Claim 4 merely extends the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 5 and 6 add limitations which is mathematical calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 7 adds a limitation which is related to mathematical concept/calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 9 recites an apparatus depending from method claim 1. Claim 9 adds limitations that are used to perform the method of claim 1. The recited units as recited are not particular devices. Claim 9 does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via recited units. In other words, the system claim is no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the system and product claim recite generic computer components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 adds a limitation which merely is data gathering. The recited “data gathering unit is configured to perform a process of receiving real-time survey data…” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general gathering data for use in later claims such as claim 10) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 11 adds a limitation which represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, he recited “output unit is configure to include display or monitor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Dependent claim 12 adds limitations which are data gathering (“databased unit for storing…”) and insignificant extra solution (“(provided) pieces of information).
Dependent claim 13 recites a VCS system which depends from method claim 1. Claim 13 does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a plurality of VCS survey units, a server, and a user terminal. In other words, the system claim is no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the system and product claim recite generic computer components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 adds a limitation that includes devices that are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (USPAP. 20230121269)(hereinafter “Kumar”).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses a reverse-time migration method for vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data using directional propagation of receiver wavefields, the method comprising:
a data gathering step in which a process of gathering vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data is performed (Fig. 1: Pars. 23, 32, and see Pars. 49, 50, and 168 for vertical seismic profile data; Fig. 2, Par. 46: acquisition system 226);
and a reverse-time migration processing step in which a process of performing reverse-time migration (Pars. 167 and 169) based on directional propagation of receiver wavefields on the VCS survey data gathered through the data gathering step to generate migration images (Par. 32) is performed.
Regarding claim 2, Kumar discloses an image output step in which a process of outputting the migration images generated through the reverse-time migration processing step via a monitor or a display is performed (Abstract; Pars. 3, 59, 60, 149-152; and Fig. 11);
and a database construction step in which a process of constructing a database by storing various pieces of data obtained through the processes and processing results of the data gathering step and the reverse-time migration processing step in a separate database (see storage at Pars. 32, 65, 66) or transmitting the data to an external device according to a predetermined setting is performed (Par. 170: transmits a portion of required data, see transmitter circuitry at Par. 190).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses wherein the data gathering step is configured so that a process of receiving real-time survey data from a vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey means installed in a survey area (see Pars. 45, 49, 50, and 168 for the vertical seismic profile (VSP) data or receiving input of survey data gathered in advance from an external source is performed (see other equipment such as 106 located remotely: Par. 32, 45).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar discloses a reverse-time migration apparatus for vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data, comprising:
a data gathering unit configured to perform a process of gathering vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data (Par. 45: vertical seismic profiling VSP) (Fig. 2, Par. 46: acquisition system 226; Fig. 1: Pars. 23, 32, and see Pars. 49, 50, and 168 for vertical seismic profile data);
a reverse-time migration processing unit configured to perform a process of performing reverse-time migration on the VCS survey data gathered by a data survey unit (Par. 165);
an output unit configured to perform a process of outputting various pieces of data including data gathered by the data gathering unit, processing results from the reverse-time migration processing unit, and information on a current state and an operation of the reverse-time migration apparatus (Par. 39: Abstract; Pars. 3, 59, 60, 149-152; and Fig. 11);
a communication unit configured to perform a process of transmitting and receiving various pieces of data by communicating with an external device including a server in at least one of wired or wireless communication according to a predetermined setting (Par. 43);
and a control unit configured to perform a process of controlling an overall operation of the reverse-time migration apparatus, wherein the reverse-time migration processing unit is configured to perform a reverse-time migration process using the reverse-time migration method for vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data using directional propagation of receiver wavefields according to claim 1 (See Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar discloses wherein the data gathering unit is configured to perform a process of receiving real-time survey data from a separate vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey means or receiving input of survey data gathered in advance (Fig. 2, Par. 46: acquisition system 226; Fig. 1: Pars. 23, 32, and see Pars. 49, 50, and 168 for vertical seismic profile data).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar discloses wherein the output unit is configured to include a monitor or a display for visually displaying the various pieces of data including the data gathered by the data gathering unit, the processing results from the reverse-time migration processing unit, and the information on the current state and the operation of the reverse-time migration apparatus according to a predetermined setting ((Abstract; Pars. 3, 59, 60, 149-152; and Fig. 11);
Regarding claim 12, Kumar discloses a database unit for storing various pieces of data obtained through the processing of the data gathering unit and the reverse-time migration processing unit (see storage at Pars. 32, 65, 66), wherein the control unit is configured to perform, based on the data stored in the database unit, a process of providing various pieces of information obtained through a vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey (see framework 1300 at Pars. 166-170) according to a request of a user in conjunction with an external device including a user terminal and a server in a customized manner (Par. 188: a user may view output from and interact with a process via an I/O device).
Regarding claim 13, Kumar discloses a vertical cable seismic (VCS) imaging system (Figs. 1-4), comprising: a plurality of VCS survey units configured to perform a process of gathering vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data for each area and performing reverse-time migration to generate VCS migration images (Pars. 3, 40); a server configured to perform a process of storing survey information gathered by the VCS survey units and the migration images for each area in a database and providing a corresponding service according to a request of a user (Par. 32: equipment located remotely from a wellsite and satellites that provide communication, data acquisition; Also see the surface processing equipment 262 at Par. 44 may include a controller at Par. 47 ); and a user terminal for requesting and receiving (Par. 188: a user may view output from and interact with a process via an I/O device) a service desired by each user in connection with the VCS survey units and the server, wherein the VCS survey unit is configured to perform a process of performing a reverse-time migration process on the VCS survey data using the reverse-time migration method for vertical cable seismic (VCS) survey data using directional propagation of receiver wavefields according to claim 1 (see claim 1’s explanation) and transmitting the gathered survey data and the processed data to the server (Processing equipment 258 at Par. 42).
Regarding claim 14, Kumar discloses wherein the user terminal is configured by installing a dedicated application interfacing with the VCS survey units and the server on a personal portable telecommunication terminal including a smartphone and a tablet PC, or an information processing device including a PC and a laptop (Par. 190).
Conclusion
Claims 4-8 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Bekara (USPAP. 20220373703) discloses processes and systems for generating an image of a subterranean formation from seismic data recorded in a seismic survey of the subterranean formation. The seismic data is contaminated with low frequency noise in a low frequency band. Processes and systems reconstruct seismic data in the low frequency band of the seismic data to obtain low frequency reconstructed seismic data that is free of the low frequency noise. The low frequency reconstructed seismic data is used to construct a velocity model of the subterranean formation. The velocity model and the low frequency reconstructed seismic data are used to generate an image of the subterranean formation that reveals structures of the subterranean formation without contamination from the low frequency noise (Abstract; Pars. 32-41). However, Bekara does not disclose claim 4.
Wang et al., Reverse Time Migration of Vertical Cable Seismic Data to Image Hydrate-Bearing Sediments with High Resolution (Submitted by Applicants) discloses a marine vertical cable Seismic (VCS) survey technique survey for marine complex structure imaging and reservoir monitoring, which uses arrays of hydrophones deployed near the seafloor to record seismic wavefields in a quiet environment (Abstract; Page 2, col. 2, Fig. 1). Wang et al. discloses a reverse time migration technique, a VCS acquisition system, and a data processing technique (Pages 3-6). However, Wang et al. does not disclose claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record, Kumar and Behara, either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “wherein the reverse-time migration processing step comprises: a pre-processing step in which a process of performing pre-processing on observed VCS pressure wavefield data according to a predetermined setting and determining a velocity model is performed… an image generation step in which a process of combining processing results from the reverse-time reconstruction processing step and the back-propagation modeling processing step into a predetermined inverse scattering imaging condition to calculate image values for each time step and all source-receiver pairs is performed” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Claims 5-8 depend from claim 4 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 M 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights