DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
References
D1: US20150177400 Ozbek et al. 2015-06-25
D2: US 20110044131 Thornton et al. 2011-02-24
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101 that 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.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite limitations which is considered to be an abstract idea:
The claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the category of a mental process concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); MPEP 2106.04a2 III. Which when given its BRI is interpreted to be a judgement or observation.
Step 2a-Prong 2- The recitation of the additional elements of "recorders" or “display” which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering or presenting data, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g) - selecting a particular data source (Electric Power Group).
Therefore, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1-20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional element(s) is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. The additional element does not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reason as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. Additionally, the "acquiring" step is indicative of well-understood, routine and conventional activity found by the courts as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d) II, particularly "[r]eceiving 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional element of the claims do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are found to be directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D2.
With regards to claims 1, the D2 reference discloses receiving a plurality of seismic traces (Abstract) from a plurality of seismic recorders associated with a geologic area of interest (Abstract); modifying, via the processing system, the plurality of seismic traces to obtain a consistent polarity (Abstract) for each seismic trace of the plurality of seismic traces; generating, via the processing system, a single waveform (Abstract: summed) based on the plurality of modified seismic traces; and determining, via the processing system, a correlation (¶ 0033).
With regards to claim 9, the D2 reference discloses the utilization of a computer readable medium (¶ 0018).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.
With regards to claim 1, the D1 reference discloses receiving, via a processing system, a plurality of seismic traces (FIG. 9: 1-8) from a plurality of seismic recorders associated with a geologic area of interest; modifying, via the processing system, the plurality of seismic traces to obtain a consistent polarity (¶¶ 14-16) for each seismic trace of the plurality of seismic traces; generating, via the processing system (FIG. 11: non-linear stack), a single waveform (FIG. 9: 9) based on the plurality of modified seismic traces; and determining, via the processing system, a coherent energy value (¶¶ 0052, 0060) associated with the plurality of seismic traces based on the plurality of seismic traces and the single waveform.
With regards to claim 9, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a computer readable media (¶ 0038).
With regards to claims 2 and 10, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a plurality of complex traces (¶ 0090); increasing, via the processing system, an instantaneous phase (¶¶ 0027, 0040, 0090) of each complex trace of the plurality of complex traces to generate a plurality of updated complex traces; and stacking, via the processing system, each updated complex trace of the plurality of updated complex traces to generate the single waveform (FIG. 9: 9).
With regards to claims 3, 11, 13, 19, and 20, the D1 reference discloses normalizing (¶ 0050).
With regards to claims 4 and 5, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a Hilbert Transform (¶ 0052).
With regards to claims 6, 14, and 16, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a phase weighted stack (¶¶ 52-55).
With regards to claims 7 and 17, the D1 reference discloses doubling (¶ 0053) the instantaneous phase.
With regards to claims 8 and 18, the D1 reference discloses the device is capable of adjusting the phase (¶ 0053).
With regards to claim 15, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of seismic recorders (Abstract, ¶ 0007).
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Helal Algahaim, can be reached on 571-270-5227.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights