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 Objections
Claims 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, the limitation “Thomson parameters” is recited. In the specification the phrase “Thomson parameters” is also recited at paragraph [0072], but the reference that appears to describe this limitation at paragraph [0077] references “Thomsen, L. ….”. The examiner believes this limitation is intended to be “Thomsen parameters”.
In claim 13, there appears to be a missing semicolon (;) at the end of the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. Specifically:
In claim 4, the limitation “the higher-order WENO approximation” is recited. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that the limitation “a higher-order Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory (WENO) approximation” is recited in claim 2. However, claim 4 depends directly from claim 3 and indirectly from claim 1, but does not depend on claim 2.
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.
Analysis of claim 1:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
obtaining an anisotropic velocity model for a subterranean region of interest, wherein the anisotropic velocity model represents a propagation velocity of seismic waves discretized on a first grid of nodes representing the subterranean region of interest;
initiating an initial anisotropic traveltime for each node of a second grid representing the subterranean region of interest, wherein the anisotropic traveltime comprises a seismic traveltime from a source location;
forming a computational system, comprising a discretization of a traveltime equation for the anisotropic velocity model; and
determining an updated anisotropic traveltime for each node on the second grid based, at least in part, on a parallel fast sweeping Cuthill-McKee ordering solution to the computational system and the initial anisotropic traveltime for each node.
The limitations highlighted in claim 1 above are mathematical concepts and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of obtaining an anisotropic velocity model discretized on a grid of nodes, initiating an initial anisotropic travetime for each node on a second grid of the region of interest, discretizing a travel time equation for the anisotropic velocity model and updating the anisotropic traveltime for each node on the second grid based on parallel fast sweeting Cuthill-McKee ordering solution to the computational system and the initial traveltime for each node. The anisotropic velocity model is a data structure that represents numerical values for the wave propagation velocity. Further, initiating an initial anisotropic traveltime for each node of a second grid is associating numerical values with a second grid of nodes as described at paragraph [0097] of the specification. Still further, the forming a computational system and determining an updated anisotropic traveltime based on a parallel fast sweeping Cuthill-McKee order solution to the computational system and the initial anisotropic traveltime for each node are mathematical operations or algorithmic techniques use to solve discretized equations which are mathematical concepts as evidence at paragraphs [0073]-[0090] of applicant’s specificationThus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
obtaining an anisotropic velocity model for a subterranean region of interest, wherein the anisotropic velocity model represents a propagation velocity of seismic waves discretized on a first grid of nodes representing the subterranean region of interest;
initiating an initial anisotropic traveltime for each node of a second grid representing the subterranean region of interest, wherein the anisotropic traveltime comprises a seismic traveltime from a source location;
forming a computational system, comprising a discretization of a traveltime equation for the anisotropic velocity model; and
determining an updated anisotropic traveltime for each node on the second grid based, at least in part, on a parallel fast sweeping Cuthill-McKee ordering solution to the computational system and the initial anisotropic traveltime for each node.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Specifically, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that are not part of the abstract idea. Moreover, the “obtaining” and “initiating” within the claim are insignificant pre-solution actions of data gathering/data initialization.
As such, claim 1 is not integrated into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there are not additional elements within the claim, as each element is part of the abstract idea/mathematical concept.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of claims 13 and 16:
Claims 13 and 16 are commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to a process, claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium and claim 16 being drawn to a corresponding system, and as such is rejected using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above. Further, the additional elements in claims 13 and 16 of “receiving/receive a seismic dataset pertaining to the subterranean region of interest”, “forming/form a seismic image of the subterranean region of interest based, at least in part on migrating the seismic dataset using the updated anisotropic traveltime for at least a portion of the nodes on the second grid” and “a seismic interpretation workstation configured to identify a drilling target based, at least in part, on the seismic image” are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering. The form/forming steps are recited at a high level of generality (forming an image from the output of using the updated anisotropic traveltime with the received data set) and is merely using a computing system to process data which is a form of insignificant post solution actions. Further still, the seismic interpretation workstation is recited at a high level of generality and is merely a general purpose computer used to interpret or display the output image as described at paragraphs [0112]-[00114] of applicant’s specification. As such, claims 13 and 16 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of claims 2-12, 14-15 and 17-20:
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-15 and 17-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-12, 14-15 and 17-20 include limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exceptions and/or are well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, using a similar analysis as applied to claims 1, 13 and 16 above.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights