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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,551,416. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite each limitation (or a trivial variation) of the current claims. (Note that in the technology area of computer-based 3D modeling, methods, systems, and computer-readable media that recite the same limitations are considered trivial variations of each other.)
The following table illustrates a mapping of the conflicting claims:
Current Application
1-6
7
8-13
14
15-20
U.S. Patent 11,551,416
1 or 10
11
1 or 10
11
1 or 10
The following table illustrates a sample mapping of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application when compared against the pertinent limitations of patented claim 1. The remaining claims can be mapped in a similar manner.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,551,416
1. A method for waveform imaging comprising:
1. A method for waveform imaging comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, observed data from a surveyed medium via a plurality of sensors;
receiving, by a computing system, observed data from a surveyed medium via a plurality of sensors; …
obtaining, by the computing system, an available model of the surveyed medium;
obtaining an available model;
generating, by the computing system, synthetic data using the available model;
generating synthetic data using the available model;
comparing, by the computing system, the synthetic data to the observed data;
comparing the synthetic data to the observed data; …
iteratively updating the available model, using a Sifrian inversion, based on the comparing of the synthetic data to the observed data;
iteratively updating the model, using a Sifrian inversion, until the synthetic data matches the observed data …
and generating, by the computing system, a final model or a final image of the surveyed medium using the updated available model.
and generating, by the computing system, a final model or a final image of the surveyed medium.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,932. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite each limitation of the current claims, and therefore the patented claims anticipate the current claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to due to minor informalities. Claim 1 recites “iteratively updating the available model, using a Sifrian inversion, based on the comparing of the synthetic data to the observed data.” Claim 2 appears to reference back to that claim 1 limitation by reciting “wherein iteratively updating the available model, using the Sifrian inversion, until the synthetic data matches the observed data within a matching threshold comprises …” but this does not exactly match the corresponding limitation from claim 1. Claims 9 and 16 are objected to for the same reasons as claim 2. The Examiner recommends amending claims 2, 9, and 16 to recite “wherein iteratively updating the available model, using the Sifrian inversion, based on the comparing of the synthetic data to the observed data comprises: iteratively updating the available model until the synthetic data matches the observed data within a matching threshold; and
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are free from the prior art.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art reference related to a Sifrian functional is Mehouachi et al. (“Exact Stochastic Second Order Deep Learning”). While this reference defines and explains a Sifrian functional in an abstract sense, it does not teach the application of a Sifrian functional to iterative generation of a model of a surveyed medium based on data observed from a plurality of sensors.
The closest prior art references related to the claimed surveying of a medium and generating a model in an iterative manner are: Sun et al. (US 2021/0018639), Tan et al. (US 2020/0348430), Warner et al. (US 2016/0238729), and Denli et al. (US 2015/0362622). Each of these references disclose techniques related to wavefield inversion including adjoint wavefields, gradients, etc., but none disclose the claimed Sifrian inversion.
The Examiner notes that the term “Sifrian” does not appear to be a common term of the art, but rather a new term created by the current inventors. In order to determine the scope/definition of the claimed “Sifrian” inversion, one must look to the original specification. The scope of the claimed “Sifrian” inversion is defined by paras. 72-74 of the original specification.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611