DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/03/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, 15 similarly recite receiving, from a seismic acquisition system, observed seismic data pertaining to a subterranean region of interest, receiving a first seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, receiving a second seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, iteratively or recursively, until a stopping criterion is satisfied: determining synthetic seismic data based on the first seismic velocity model; determining an updated second seismic velocity model based on the second seismic velocity model, the observed seismic data, and the synthetic seismic data; determining synthetic reflection data based on the updated second seismic velocity model; determining, using dynamic image warping, traveltime shift data between the synthetic reflection data and the observed seismic data; determining warped observed seismic data by applying the traveltime shift data to the observed seismic data; determining, using local similarity based on shaping regularization, conditioned traveltime shift data based on the synthetic reflection data, the warped observed seismic data, and the traveltime shift data; and determining an updated first seismic velocity model based on the first seismic velocity model and the conditioned traveltime shift data, determining a seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest based on the updated first seismic velocity model, and determining a seismic image based on the observed seismic data and the seismic velocity model; and determining, using a seismic interpretation workstation, a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the subterranean region of interest using the seismic image .
The limitations of iteratively or recursively, until a stopping criterion is satisfied: determining synthetic seismic data based on the first seismic velocity model; determining an updated second seismic velocity model based on the second seismic velocity model, the observed seismic data, and the synthetic seismic data; determining synthetic reflection data based on the updated second seismic velocity model; determining, using dynamic image warping, traveltime shift data between the synthetic reflection data and the observed seismic data; determining warped observed seismic data by applying the traveltime shift data to the observed seismic data; determining, using local similarity based on shaping regularization, conditioned traveltime shift data based on the synthetic reflection data, the warped observed seismic data, and the traveltime shift data; and determining an updated first seismic velocity model based on the first seismic velocity model and the conditioned traveltime shift data, determining a seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest based on the updated first seismic velocity model, and determining, …, a location of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the subterranean region of interest using the three- dimensional seismic image, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to the ten “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user judging synthetic seismic data, judging an updated second seismic velocity model, judging synthetic reflection data, judging traveltime shift data, judging warped observed seismic data, judging conditioned traveltime shift data, judging an updated first seismic velocity model, judging a seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, and judging a location. 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, claims 1, 11, 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a system comprising: a seismic processing system configured to:; a non-transitory computer-readable memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computer processor, perform steps comprising: receiving, from a seismic acquisition system, observed seismic data pertaining to a subterranean region of interest, receiving a first seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest, receiving a second seismic velocity model of the subterranean region of interest; rendering, on a seismic interpretation workstation, a three-dimensional seismic image based on the observed seismic data and the seismic velocity model; using the seismic interpretation workstation. The system, seismic processing system, seismic interpretation workstation, and non-transitory computer-readable memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to the receiving and rendering steps represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and the elements pertaining to the receiving are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims 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 elements pertaining to the receiving steps represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The additional element pertaining to the rendering step represents insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data display and/or oil prospecting and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of, at least, displaying seismic data in three dimensions (Klebba, [col. 1, lines 25-34]) and display of the seismic data in or based on 3D or four dimensional vectors (Dean, [0003]).Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, 16-20 depend on claims 1, 11, 15 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 12, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to designing a wellbore drilling plan. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of analyzing the location and judging a wellbore drilling plan. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 12, 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 13 recite additional limitations pertaining to drilling a wellbore. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims 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 elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of drilling, production, and/or reservoir engineering and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of drilling wells at locations based on drill plans as in a plurality of patent publications comprising at least: [0010], [0012], [0187] of Tawil (US 2021/0318464); [0134] of Ranjan (US 2017/0075005); [0155] of Tawil (US 2021/0319304); [0182], Fig. 7 of Passolt (US 2018/0075544); [0134] of Dusterhoft (US 2017/0075006). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 17 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to determining the updated second seismic velocity model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function, judging a first gradient, and judging an adjustment to the model. 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. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 elements represent further mental process or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 4, 17 are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites additional limitations pertaining to the first cost function. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function comprising a least squares function. 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. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 elements represent further mental process and/or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites additional limitations pertaining to determining the synthetic reflection. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging the synthetic reflection data comprising born modeling. 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. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 elements represent further mental process and/or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to forming a second cost function based on the conditioned traveltime, determining second gradient, and perturbing the model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function, judging a first gradient, and judging an adjustment to the model. 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. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 elements represent further mental process or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7, 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 8, 19 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to forming a third cost function, determining a third gradient, and perturbing the model. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a first cost function, judging a first gradient, and judging an adjustment to the model. 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. Further, these claims recite mathematical relationships, calculations and/or formulas These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process or mathematical step) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 elements represent further mental process or mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 8, 19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 9, 20 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to using the shaping regularization. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a local similarity attribute. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9, 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites additional limitations pertaining to the first seismic velocity model which is received in claim 1. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims 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 elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites additional limitations pertaining to the seismic acquisition system. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Further, this claim recites generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims 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 elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Further, this claim recites generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 01/01/25.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 9-11, applicant cites various subject matter from the specification, which is not necessarily reflected in the claim.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the subject matter recited by the applicant is not reflected in the claims.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 12-13, applicant argues that the claims do not fall into any of the grouping when evaluated as a whole, and specifically, do not recite any mental process as defined above such as observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 13, applicant argues that the claims could not be performed practically in the human mind because of the large size of the observed seismic data, and that, it is not required to be claimed.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not limit the invention to seismic data of any particular size. Therefore, under it’s BRI, the seismic data can comprise a minimal amount. That is, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111.01(II).
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 13, applicant argues that the claims do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas or questions.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the examiner has not indicated that any limitations in the independent claims recite mathematical concepts.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 14, applicant argues that the technical field of hydrocarbon exploration is improved by improving seismic inversion.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims, and especially the independent claims, do not reflect seismic inversion. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that “after the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.”. Further, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 15, applicant argues that the specific ordered combination of limitations is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and recites subject matter mentioned previously in applicant’s remarks.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that, as addressed in more detail above, the claims do not recite seismic inversion among other mentioned subject matter and this cannot be imported into he claims from the specification. Further, as also aforementioned, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 15, applicant argues that the order combination of limitations are not the same as those found in Versata or Intellectual Ventures.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that, responsive to the applicant’s amendments, portions of the rejection have been updated accordingly. Further, the claims do not include any additional limitations that provide significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Neff (US 2022/0390632) discloses Seismic velocity analysis for class II sands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
