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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "relevance determination engine" configured to perform the recited estimating and determining functions (claims 8-14), and "image analysis system" configured to analyze contours (claim 14).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure is the general-purpose processor 202 and memory 204 of FIG. 2, programmed to carry out, for the image analysis system, the model-training and classification algorithm of FIGS. 4-5, and, for the relevance determination engine, the likelihood-estimation methods described at operation 604 of FIG. 6 (the four categories of geomorphic differentiation, contour rate-of-change, stratigraphic indicators, and contour analysis).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 14, and 15 is/are objected to because of informalities.
Claim 11 recites that the relevance determination engine is "configured to determining the rate of change"; this is grammatically incomplete and renders the claim scope unclear (the limitation should read "configured to determine").
Claim 14 recites "wherein an image analysis system is configured to", but parent claim 8 does not positively recite an image analysis system; the status of this element within the apparatus should be clarified.
Claim 15 recites outputting an indication that "the surface feature" is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation, but the claim earlier introduces only "an ovoid surface feature"; the recitation "the surface feature" therefore lacks proper antecedent basis (claims 1 and 8 are internally consistent in reciting "the ovoid surface feature").
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 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,404 (issued from Application No. 18/528,434, of which the present application is a continuation). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims a method, apparatus, and computer program product for training and hosting an image analysis engine to identify ovoid surficial depressions consistent with subsurface hydrogen accumulation, (Patent claims 1, 5, 9: "the surface features comprise changes on the order of millimeters to centimeters per year"; claims 13, 15, 17: "dynamic surface deformations in the ovoid surficial depressions over time"; claims 14, 16, 18: "swelling or contracting of the ovoid surficial depressions".) The present claims recite automatically estimating a likelihood that the same ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation, comparing that likelihood to a predetermined threshold, and (claims 3-5, 10-12, 17-18) determining a rate of change in the contours of that feature. Both sets are directed to the same inventive concept of automatically identifying ovoid surface features that deform on the order of millimeters to centimeters per year as indicators of active subsurface hydrogen. Estimating a likelihood for, and thresholding, the very features the patented engine is trained to identify is an obvious variation that is not patentably distinct.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/528,407. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets are directed to the same inventive concept of using a relevance determination engine to estimate a likelihood that an ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation and to compare that likelihood to a threshold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/558,132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of automatically identifying surface features of the Earth consistent with subsurface hydrogen accumulation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts of estimating a likelihood with a threshold and a mental process that could be performed in the mind of a geologist reviewing imagery. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim are recited a high level of generality without any particular technical implementation. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because he additional elements, considered individually and in combination, are generic computer
components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 is a process. Claim 8 is a machine (apparatus). Claim 15 is a manufacture (computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). All claims fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One – Judicial Exception
The claims are directed, first, to a law of nature and natural phenomenon. Each independent claim recites estimating a likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation. Whether a naturally occurring surface feature of the Earth is in fact underlain by active subsurface hydrogen is a fact of nature that exists independently of any human activity, and the recited likelihood is no more than a measure of that naturally occurring relationship. The inventor did not create that relationship; the inventor discovered it. A claim to estimating or measuring a naturally occurring relationship, however significant the underlying discovery, is directed to a law of nature and is not patent-eligible. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012); MPEP § 2106.04(6).
The claims additionally recite abstract ideas. The independent claims recite “automatically estimating ... a likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation and determining ... whether the estimated likelihood satisfies a predetermined threshold.” Estimating a likelihood and comparing it to a threshold are mathematical concepts (a probability calculation and a numerical comparison). The same steps also describe an evaluation or judgment about the geological significance of a surface feature that could be performed in the mind of a geologist reviewing imagery and field data, and so additionally recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I and III.
The dependent claims directed to a degree of geomorphic differentiation (claims 2, 9, 16) and to the use of stratigraphic unit information (claims 6, 13, 19), and the determination of whether a feature is caused by surficial hydrogen seepage rather than another geological event (claims 7, 14, 20), likewise recite mathematical concepts and/or mental process evaluations of geological significance.
The dependent claims directed to a rate of change in one or more contours of the ovoid
surface feature (claims 3, 10, 17), to the calculation of that rate from two images ... captured at
different times and an elapsed time and degree of difference (claims 4, 11, 18), and to
determining that rate from historical microseismic activity (claims 5, 12), are characterized as
reciting mathematical concepts. The recited rate of change is a quantity computed from a
measured difference divided by an elapsed time. These claims are not characterized as a mental
process. The specification states that the highest-priority targets exhibit deformation of the order of millimeters to centimeters per year detected with multi temporal LIDAR and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), and that historical image data permits resolving contour changes at the centimeter scale. Tracking surface deformation at that scale across multiple acquisitions is a mathematical operation on remotely sensed data, not an evaluation that is practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea are communications circuitry that receives information and outputs an indication, the relevance determination engine and (in claims 7, 14, 20) the image analysis system, and the application of the analysis to the domain of subsurface hydrogen exploration. These are recited at a high level of generality. The communications circuitry performs generic data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Acquiring the satellite or InSAR imagery from which the surface feature and its deformation are measured is mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Detecting a naturally occurring phenomenon using conventional detection techniques does not confer eligibility, even where the underlying discovery is significant. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (detecting naturally occurring cell-free fetal DNA with conventional amplification techniques was ineligible notwithstanding the groundbreaking nature of the discovery). The claims here share that structure: the naturally occurring relationship between an ovoid surface feature and the subsurface hydrogen that it indicates is detected using conventional remote sensing, and the claims add no further inventive step. The claims do not recite any responsive physical step, such as drilling or placement of a well at the identified location, that would apply the natural relationship in a particular manner. Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int'1 Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018). They do not claim any specific improvement to the InSAR or image processing technology itself. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). They do not recite any unconventional arrangement of sensors or other technical components. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Although the specification describes a technical improvement, namely a modified convolutional neural network that allows direct processing of full-size satellite imagery (on the order of billions of pixels) on consumer graphics cards while minimizing memory and computational requirements (specification at the description of model generator 210/operation 404), no claim recites that improvement. The claims recite only the outcome of estimating a likelihood and outputting an indication, without reciting the modified CNN mechanism or any other particular technical implementation, and would cover every means of achieving the result. An improvement set forth in the specification but not reflected in the claims does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(a); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting, analyzing, and outputting results of analysis, without more, is abstract). The asserted benefit is better identification of geological exploration targets, which is an improvement to the results of exploration rather than to a technology. The application to subsurface hydrogen exploration is a field-of-use limitation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h); Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (applying generic machine-learning techniques to a new field of use does not render claims patent-eligible absent a concrete technical improvement). The likelihood estimation and the rate-of-change determination are recited functionally, without a specific technical implementation, and so are no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions: receiving data, executing a calculation, comparing a value to a threshold, and outputting a result. That these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional is evidenced by the applicant's own specification, which describes the processor, memory, and communications circuitry only in generic terms (processor 202 may be embodied in a number of different ways; memory 204 is a generic computer-readable storage medium; communications circuitry 206 is any means such as a device or circuitry), and is further evidenced by Imhof, which discloses performing this class of geophysical analysis on a conventional computer comprising (Imhof: "a processor; memory coupled to the processor; and a set of instructions stored in memory, accessible by the processor" (¶15).). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). There is no inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Step 2B: NO.
With respect to the rate of change claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 , 12, 17, and 18, the additional element of measuring surface deformation by Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) is itself well-understood, routine, and conventional, and so supplies no inventive concept. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018); MPEP § 2106.05(d). InSAR deformation monitoring was a standard, automated, and routinely used technique before the effective filing date, as evidenced by Anantrasirichai (Anantrasirichai: InSAR "is a satellite remote sensing technique used to measure ground displacement at the centimeter scale over large geographic areas and has been widely applied to volcanology" (Introduction); the reference is titled "Classification of Volcanic Deformation in Routinely-Generated InSAR data" and processes the interferograms through "the automated InSAR processing system LiCSAR" over more than 900 volcanoes.). Under Mayo, conventional detection steps applied to a natural law add nothing inventive. 566 U.S. at 79.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti et al., Hydrogen Emanations in Intracratonic Areas: New Guide Lines for Early Exploration Basin Screening (hereinafter "Moretti"), in view of lmhof, US 2015/0254567 A1 (hereinafter "Imhof''), and further in view of Gaucher, New Perspectives in the Industrial Exploration for Native Hydrogen (hereinafter "Gaucher").
Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Moretti discloses a method for automatically identifying surface features of the Earth indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Moretti: "ten to a few hundred meters wide
natural depressions, corresponding to vegetation gaps ... Very often their soils contain high
ratio of hydrogen. They can therefore be good proxy candidates for H2 exploration" (Sec.
1). The fairy circles are surface features mapped from satellite imagery as proxies for
active subsurface hydrogen.), the method comprising:
receiving, by communications circuitry, information describing an ovoid surface feature of the Earth (Moretti: "The fairy circles are visible on satellite images, and as such can easily be mapped without field acquisition" (Sec. 2); the mapped size, depth, and slope of each fairy circle is the information describing the ovoid surface feature.);
Moretti teaches the geological framework but does not teach automatically estimating a
likelihood with a relevance determination engine, comparing the likelihood to a predetermined
threshold, and outputting an indication when the threshold is satisfied. However, Imhof, in the
same field of geophysical exploration, teaches automatically estimating, by a relevance determination engine, a likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Imhof: prospectivity is "a measure or estimate of the probability of encountering reservoir rock having properties that support hydrocarbon accumulations, a sizeable trap, adequate seal, source rock" (¶61); "scores are computed for some analysis units that are used to rate and rank these units. An exemplary score may be prospectivity" (¶ 119). The automatically computed prospectivity score is the estimated likelihood.); determining, by the relevance determination engine, whether the estimated likelihood satisfies a predetermined threshold (Imhof: the returned units "may be rated and ranked based on some criterion or measure specified by the user" (¶119), and "the interpreter specifies an areal threshold ... If a sample inside an analysis units exceed this threshold, then the ... property is assigned to this analysis unit" (¶121). Imhof estimates the prospectivity likelihood and gates the result against a specified threshold, which is the comparison of the estimated likelihood to a predetermined threshold.); and in an instance in which the estimated likelihood satisfies the predetermined threshold, outputting, by the communications circuitry, an indication that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation (Imhof: "presenting the seismic analysis units that satisfy any given query is by visually coding the successful units, for example by highlighting those units with colors" (¶125). This is outputting an indication for the units that satisfy the threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Imhof with Moretti. Moretti teaches that hydrogen exploration should follow
established oil and gas surface exploration methodology (Moretti: "Oil seeps or gas seeps are
proxies for exploration in the Oil and Gas (O&G) industry ... it seems reasonable to start
the H2 exploration with a basin scale study of the H2 surface emanations" (Sec. 1.2).)
Gaucher confirms this approach, directing that (Gaucher: "Geologists should now adopt the
tripartite concept of ‘source rock, reservoir, and trap’ in the exploration for native
hydrogen and abiotic gases" (p. 8), and that "the first method of exploration may be to find
H2 seeps in areas where source rocks are known" (p. 8).) Imhof supplies the automated prospectivity scoring and thresholding engine used in that oil and gas methodology. Applying Imhof’s known scoring and thresholding technique to Moretti's hydrogen fairy circles, as Gaucher directs, is the use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way,
yielding the predictable result of an automated, repeatable basin-screening tool. KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143.
Claims 8 and 15 recite an apparatus and a computer program product, respectively,
commensurate in scope with claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons. The communications circuitry, relevance determination engine, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are generic computer components (Imhof: "a processor; memory coupled to the processor; and a set of instructions stored in memory, accessible by the processor" (¶15). Imhof performs the recited geophysical analysis on a conventional computer.).
Claims 2, 9, and 16.
The combination of Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the method of claim 1, wherein automatically estimating the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation includes: determining, by the relevance determination engine, a degree of geomorphic differentiation between the ovoid surface feature and one or more surrounding surface features; and (Moretti: "depth and slope are larger for the karst system. For the about 700 structures mapped in Brazil the depth/diameter ratio is always below 1.5% and in average lower than 1% ... In the doline in Spain this ratio is more than 10% ... For the two dolines, the maximum slopes reach 36% ... For the fairy circles the maximum is lower than 8% and the average 3%" (Sec. 3). Moretti differentiates hydrogen fairy circles from surrounding karstic depressions by quantified depth/diameter ratio and slope.)
estimating, by the relevance determination engine, the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation based on the degree of geomorphic differentiation between the ovoid surface feature and the one or more surrounding surface features (Moretti: the lower depth/diameter ratio (below 1.5%) and lower maximum slope (below 8%) of fairy circles relative to karstic dolines (Sec. 3) is the degree of geomorphic differentiation on which the hydrogen-likelihood estimate is based.).
Claims 6, 13, and 19.
The combination of Moretti, Imhof, and Gaucher discloses the method of claim 1, wherein automatically estimating the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation includes: identifying, by the relevance determination engine, a geographical location of the ovoid surface feature (Moretti: "The fairy circles are visible on satellite images, and as such can easily be mapped without field acquisition" (Sec. 2). Mapping each fairy circle to its position on the satellite imagery identifies the geographical location of the feature.);
receiving, by the communications circuitry, information about a stratigraphic unit containing the identified geographical location of the ovoid surface feature (Moretti: the H2 emitting structures occur in "stable intracratonic basins above Archean to Proterozoic basement" (Sec. 1), and "The old cratons host many of the H2 emitting structures" (Sec. 2). The basement/craton unit containing the feature is the recited stratigraphic unit information.); and
estimating, by the relevance determination engine, the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation based on the received information regarding the stratigraphic unit (Gaucher: "Three main types of source rocks have already been identified: (1) ultrabasic rocks; (2) iron-rich cratons; (3) uranium rich rocks" (p. 8). Gaucher identifies the stratigraphic source rock characteristics used to estimate native hydrogen potential.).
Claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Moretti in view of Imhof, and further in view of Anantrasirichai et al.,
Application of Machine Learning to Classification of Volcanic Deformation in Routinely
Generated InSAR Data (hereinafter "Anantrasirichai").
Claims 3, 10, and 17.
The method of claim 1, wherein automatically estimating the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation includes:
Moretti and Imhof do not teach determining a rate of change in one or more contours of the surface feature . However, Anantrasirichai, in the same field of remote-sensing surface deformation analysis, teaches determining, by the relevance determination engine, a rate of change in one or more contours of the ovoid surface feature (Anantrasirichai: the method works on "wrapped" interferograms "displayed as fringes each representing a set amount of displacement, equal to half the radar wavelength" (p. 2); "Each colour cycle (fringe) represents 2.8 cm of displacement in the satellite line-of-sight" (Figs. 8-9). The number and spacing of fringes over a time interval gives the rate of change in the surface contours.); and estimating, by the relevance determination engine, the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation based on the rate of change in the one or more contours of the ovoid surface feature (Anantrasirichai: InSAR is used "to measure ground displacement at the centimeter scale over large geographic areas" (Introduction); ranking a feature by its measured deformation rate is estimating the likelihood based on that rate of change.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Anantrasirichai's InSAR deformation analysis into the relevance determination engine of Moretti and Imhof to calculate the rate of change in the surface contours of a fairy circle. The motivation is that active deformation distinguishes currently charging hydrogen systems from static ones, and InSAR is an established means of measuring centimeter-scale ground displacement over large areas (Anantrasirichai: lnSAR is used "to measure ground displacement at the centimeter-scale over large geographic areas" (Introduction).). The combination yields the predictable result of ranking targets by their
measured deformation rate.
Claims 4, 11, and 18.
Moretti, Imhof, and Anantrasirichai disclose the method of claim 3, wherein determining the rate of change in one or more contours of the ovoid surface feature includes: retrieving, by the communications circuitry, two images of the ovoid surface feature captured at different times (Anantrasirichai forms interferograms from pairs of SAR acquisitions of the same ground area captured at different times, each labeled by its acquisition start and end dates, e.g. "(20080827-20100623)" (Fig. 3). The two dated acquisitions are the two images of the feature captured at different times.);
calculating, by the relevance determination engine, an elapsed time between capture of the two images (Anantrasirichai: each interferogram spans a labeled acquisition start date and end date, e.g. "(20080827-20100623)" (Fig. 3); the interval between those two dates is the elapsed time between capture of the two images.);
calculating, by the relevance determination engine, a degree of difference in the two images between segments corresponding to the ovoid surface feature (Anantrasirichai: "Each
colour cycle (fringe) represents 2.8 cm of displacement in the satellite line-of-sight" (Figs. 8-9); the fringe count between the two acquisitions is the degree of difference between the corresponding segments of the two images.); and
determining, by the relevance determination engine, the rate of change in the one or more contours of the ovoid surface feature based on the elapsed time between capture of the two images and the calculated degree of difference in the two images between the segments corresponding to the ovoid surface feature (Anantrasirichai: the displacement given by
the fringe count, divided over the elapsed interval between the two dated acquisitions, is
the rate of change in the contours of the feature.).
Claims 5 and 12.
Moretti, Imhof, and Anantrasirichai render obvious the method of claim 3, wherein determining the rate of change in one or more contours of the ovoid surface feature includes:
identifying, by the relevance determination engine, a geographical location of the ovoid
surface feature; (Moretti: "The fairy circles are visible on satellite images, and as such
can easily be mapped without field acquisition" (Sec. 2). Mapping each fairy circle to its
position on the satellite imagery identifies the geographical location of the feature.)
receiving, by the communications circuitry, data indicative of historical microseismic activity
at the geographical location of the ovoid surface feature; and (Official Notice: monitoring and recording historical seismic and microseismic activity, and using that activity as evidence of subsurface ground movement, was well known in the geophysical arts before the effective filing date. Applicant's specification admits this art is preexisting and public "active seismographs and geophones exist all over the world that are constantly monitoring seismic activity" (p. 25), and that there may be "historical logs of seismic activity that are sufficiently precise as to enable insight into the subsurface activity at or near the ovoid surface feature" (p. 25).)
determining, by the relevance determination engine, the rate of change in the one or more
contours of the ovoid surface feature based on the data indicative of historical microseismic
activity at the geographical location of the ovoid surface feature. (Official Notice: it was
well known before the effective filing date, and applicant admits, to infer subsurface and ground movement at a location from its historical microseismic record. Determining the contour rate of change for the feature based on that admittedly conventional microseismic data, taken together with the InSAR deformation analysis of Anantrasirichai, is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods. to yield the predictable result of a more reliable contour-rate estimate. See MPEP § 2143(A) and § 2144.03.)
It would have been obvious to use such publicly available historical seismic and microseismic records as an additional data input to the rate-of-change determination of claim 3, in order to corroborate the InSAR-based deformation analysis of Anantrasirichai and improve the reliability of the likelihood estimate. If applicant traverses the Examiner's Official Notice, applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Official Notice as required by MPEP § 2144.03 (C).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Imhof, and further in view of Zhu et al., Detection of Fairy Circles in UAV Images Using Deep Learning, (hereinafter "Zhu").
Claims 7, 14, and 20.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Moretti, Imhof, and Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein automatically estimating the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation includes
Moretti and Imhof do not teach an image analysis system that analyzes contours of the surface feature. However, Zhu, in the same field of fairy-circle detection, teaches analyzing, by an image analysis system, contours of the ovoid surface feature to determine a likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is caused by surficial hydrogen seepage rather than another geological event, (Zhu: "To improve fairy circle detection and localization automatically in aerial images, we here present the use of a convolutional neural network (CNN)" (Abstract); "FCs were manually labeled and a new contour binary image was generated in the orthomosaic" (Sec. II). Zhu's CNN-based image analysis system analyzes fairy-circle contours in overhead imagery. Moretti distinguishes hydrogen fairy circles from karstic dolines by quantified depth/diameter ratio and slope (Sec. 3), which is the determination that the feature is caused by surficial hydrogen seepage rather than another geological event.)
wherein the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is indicative of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation comprises the likelihood that the ovoid surface feature is caused by surficial hydrogen seepage rather than another geological event. (In the combination the seepage versus other geological event determination produced by Zhu's image analysis of Moretti's hydrogen fairy circles is the recited likelihood of active subsurface hydrogen accumulation.)
Zhu and Moretti are in the same field of endeavor: the detection and mapping of fairy circles (ovoid surface depressions) from overhead imagery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Zhu's CNN based fairy circle image analysis to the hydrogen exploration framework of Moretti and Imhof in order to automate detection and contour analysis of candidate features over large areas, yielding the predictable result of faster and more repeatable screening than manual interpretation. See MPEP § 2141 (II) and § 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied, yet considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed on the PTO-892 form.
Larin et al., Natural molecular hydrogen seepage associated with surficial, rounded depressions on the European craton in Russia, Natural Resources Research 24(3):369-383 (2015).
Prinzhofer et al., Natural hydrogen continuous emission from sedimentary basins: The example of a Brazilian H2-emitting structure, Int'l J. Hydrogen Energy 44(12):5676-5685 (2019) (disclosing that active H2 systems are characterized by ovoid "fairy circles" and that such depressions may appear or disappear over a couple of years of satellite imagery)
Donze et al., Migration of Natural Hydrogen from Deep-Seated Sources in the Sao Francisco Basin, Brazil, Geosciences 10(9) :346 (2020) ( disclosing satellite detection of sub-circular soil depressions as evidence of H2 seepage).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights