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 .
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 – 20 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.
The term “useful” in claim 1,15, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “useful” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What makes data “useful” or relevant is subjective when broadly but reasonably interpreting the claims. The specification does not provide any clear examples or requirements that would help one skilled in the arts to determine which data points would be considered useful. Further clarity such as including limitation that define or state what particular characteristic in the data needed to determine the geological structure.
Claims 2 – 14 and 16 – 20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 4 – 13, 15, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a computer implemented method that obtains seismic data and generates tomography data that is useful for characterizing a geological structure.
The limitation of generating tomography data from the seismic data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer-implemented method,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a computer-implemented method” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the seismic data and making known characterizations of a geological structure. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a DAS to obtain seismic data. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing characterizations of a geological structure) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the characterizations based on data amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 – 15, and 17 – 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis et al. (US 2022/028330) and in view of Kay et al. (US 2022/0333977).
Regarding Claim 1:
Willis et al. teaches a computer-implemented method useful for performing seismic tomography, comprising: obtaining seismic data comprising distributed acoustic sensing data (paragraph 0014, via 104), comprising at least one of P-wave or S-wave travel times (paragraph 0026, via 114 and 116) from a plurality of seismic events to a recording station (120) coupled to a network of optical fibers (106) in a geological structure (118); and generating tomography data (paragraph 0026, Figs 6A to 6F) from the seismic data, wherein the tomography data is useful for characterizing the geological structure (abstract, paragraph 0012, 0020).
Willis et al. is silent to a plurality of recording stations.
However, Kay et al. teaches a plurality of recording stations (wells 18, Fig 1) for obtaining seismic data (paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to provide the plurality of recording stations of Kay et al. in the method of Willis et al. since duplications of parts is a routine skill in the art and Kay et al. teaches the purpose of reducing surface disruption.
Regarding Claim 6:
Willis et al. teaches the fibers comprise telecommunication optical fibers and the recording stations obtain the DAS data from measurements of backscattering of laser pulses propagating in the fibers in response to deformations of the ground in contact with the fibers and caused by at least a subset of the seismic events (Fig 1, polarographs 0014 - 0016).
Regarding Claim 7:
Willis et al. teaches the seismic events comprise at least 1000 seismic events recorded using a method different from DAS (Block 402).
Regarding Claim 8:
Willis et al. teaches the seismic events comprise an earthquake, volcanic activity, an explosion from an active survey explosive source, a deformation of the ground caused by a hammer, or a deformation of the ground caused by a vehicle (Fig 1, via 114).
Regarding Claim 9:
Willis et al. teaches he DAS data comprises travel times associated with seismic events having a threshold signal to noise ratio (paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 10:
Willis et al. teaches n the tomographic data is generated with an accuracy wherein the tomographic map has a spatial resolution of less than 10 km or less than 1 km (Figs 5 – 6).
Regarding Claim 11:
Willis et al. teaches the seismic events are located within 200 km of the network of fibers and the tomographic data generates a map of an area enclosing the network of optical fibers and extending no more than 10 km from a furthest extremity of the network of fibers (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 12:
Willis et al. teaches generating the tomographic map of at least one of a geothermal anomaly (temperature variation as a function of position), faults or anomalies in a fault structure, a magmatic system, an oil field, a natural gas field, a composition of the geological structure, or a geophysical structure (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 13:
Willis et al. teaches using the tomographic map for geothermal prospect exploration, subsurface monitoring for carbon sequestration, characterization of subsurface properties for earthquake amplification factor estimation, earthquake prediction, detection or alarm systems, or volcanic eruption detection, prediction or alarm systems (abstract, Figs 1, 5 – 6).
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Willis et al. teaches the network of telecommunication optical fibers and the recording stations coupled to the optical fibers; a laser source for outputting laser pulses into the fibers; and the recording stations comprising detectors for detecting the backscattering in response to deformations of the ground in contact with the fibers and caused by at least a subset of the seismic events (paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 18:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5, 114, 16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights