DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/19/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 21-22: added and 19-20: cancelled d.
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 1-7 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-7 and 21-22 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1–7 is directed to a “computer-readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.1
Regarding Claims 1-7
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of acoustic logging data processing.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
An acoustic logging data processing system, comprising:
memory media storing processor-executable instructions thereon, wherein the processor- executable instructions comprise instructions for performing automated acoustic tool waveform time pick for dual arrival waveform events recorded by an acoustic logging tool at one or more measured depth locations with one or more sources and one or more receiver sensors of the acoustic logging tool; and
one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions stored in the memory media, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors cause the acoustic logging data processing system to:
compute a first tau-P transform in a common shot gather (CSC) domain for each measured depth location of the one or more measured depth locations and for each nominal receiver azimuth of the one or more receiver sensors;
concatenate results of the first tau-P transform into a four-dimensional (4D) cube;
permute cube indices of the 41) cube to be tau-CSG x nominal receiver azimuth x MD x p-CSG;
compute a second tau-P transform in a common ring gather (CRG) domain for each MD x p-CSG slice of the 4D cube;
permute cube indices of the 4D cube to be tau-CRCxMD x p-CRC x p-CSG;
compute a third tau-P transform in a common offset gather (COG) domain for each p-CRC x p-CSC slice of the 4D cube to provide a 4D cube having indices of tau- COG x p-COG x p-CRG x p-C SG;
convolve the 4D cube as a function of tau-COG to provide a 4D tau-P cube, use an event localization for projected waveforms from the 41) cube having indices of tau-CRG x MDx p-CRG x p-CSG to find start and end measured depth locations of an arrival event in the COG domain;
use local maxima in the 4D tau-P cube and the start and end measured depth locations of the arrival event to produce a set of arrival Limes for dual arrival events in the COG, CSG, and CRG domains; and
create a waveform display overlay using the set of arrival times to mark the dual arrival events in waveform measurements recorded by the acoustic logging tool.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations” compute a first tau-P transform in a common shot gather (CSC) domain[..]; concatenate results of the first tau-P transform [..]; permute cube indices of the 4D cube[..]; compute a second tau-P transform [..]; permute cube indices[..]; compute a third tau-P transform in a common offset gather (COG) [..]; convolve the 4D cube as a function of tau-COG [..]; use local maxima in the 4D tau-P cube and the start and end measured depth locations of the arrival event to produce a set of arrival Limes for dual arrival events in the COG, CSG, and CRG domains;” are mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The 1st additional element is “memory media storing processor-executable instructions thereon, wherein the processor- executable instructions comprise instructions for performing automated acoustic tool waveform time pick for dual arrival waveform events recorded by an acoustic logging tool at one or more measured depth locations with one or more sources and one or more receiver sensors of the acoustic logging tool” This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and/or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “An acoustic logging data processing system; memory media storing processor-executable instructions thereon, wherein the processor- executable instructions comprise instructions for performing ; one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions stored in the memory media, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors cause the acoustic logging data processing system to” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 3rd additional element is “create a waveform display overlay using the set of arrival times to mark the dual arrival events in waveform measurements recorded by the acoustic logging tool” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a an output apparatus configured to output information relating to the result, which is conventional and generic technology. See, ELECTRIC POWER GROUP, LLC v. ALSTOM S.A., where Court cites “Two of our decisions that rejected § 101 challenges are materially different from this case. The claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (at JMOL stage finding inventive concept in modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display). Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (at pleading stage finding sufficient inventive concept in “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the endusers, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user”). The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information- based abstract ideas.” And a an post solution activity well known in the particular industry .
In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the four “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of devices each with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claims “acoustic logging data processing system, comprising processor , memory, acoustic logging tool”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 21-22
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 10 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-7 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples,
2. the acoustic logging data processing system to store the 4Dcube for the event localization (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and/or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g)).
3. the acoustic logging data processing system to convolve the 4Dcube as a function of with a one-dimensional (ID) boxcar function(this element is directed to a abstract idea of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships)).
4. the 1Dboxcar function as a duration A:=:0.2 milliseconds (this element is directed to a abstract idea of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships)).
5. the acoustic logging data processing system to use a local median filter onthe4D tau-P cube to reduce noise and sharpen peaks prior to finding and sorting the local maxima in the 4D) tau-Pcube. (this element is directed to a abstract idea of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships)).
6. the acoustic logging data processing system to, prior to using the event localization for the projected waveforms: find and sort local maxima in the 4D tau-Pcube; and select a local maximum from the local maxima. (this element is directed to a abstract idea of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships)).
7. the acoustic logging data processing system to provide a log display of tool layer and shoulder bed compressional and shear slowness(This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and/or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g)).
21. using the waveform display overlay, sending a control command to the acoustic logging tool(This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and/or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g)).
22. constructing a plurality of local curtain sections for the dual arrival events along a well trajectory using the set of arrival times and the waveform display overlay; and merging the plurality of local curtain sections into a complete curtain section along a length of the well trajectory(are mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims 1 however there is 101 rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, The applicant did not agree with it. The Applicant argus that “claims 1-7, 21, and 22 do not recite a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and patent eligible” see, pages 9-14
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree the limitations of claims, specially claim 1 , represent mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claim 1, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic sensor system with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Cheng et al. (US 2017/0031047): methods of transforming the traces 410 of seismic data 400 may be used, such as the tau-p transform. Traces 410 may each be shifted by particular times, in certain embodiments, which may each be different from one another. For example, traces 410 may each be shifted by an increasing multiple of a first break time as described above. FIG. 4D illustrates an example version of isolated traces 410 of FIG. 4C shifted according to one or more rules.
b) Wang et al. (US 2016/0291185): a progressive sparse Tau-P inversion algorithm for 3D deghosting of single-component marine seismic data. This algorithm was used to deghost both baseline and monitor data sets separately in 4D processing. However, this algorithm does not take advantage of the potentially better spatial sampling from different surveys and better overall signal-to-noise (S/N) due to complementary ghost-notch frequencies (if receiver depths of two or more vintages are different).
c) Poole et al. (US 2016/0187513) disclose described above with reference to step 308, FIG. 3. In an example, the seismic model is a tau-p model. As discussed above, the position data can be one-, two-, or three-dimensional. Accordingly, the tau-p model can be a two-, three, or four-dimensional model (intercept time vs. one, two, or three dimensions of slowness).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
1 Applicant’s specification defines “memory media” as “the memory media of the acoustic logging data processing system may include one or more different forms of memory including semiconductor memory devices such as dynamic or static random access memories (DRAMs or SRAMs), erasable and programmable read-only memories (EPROMs), electrically erasable and programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs) and flash memories; magnetic disks such as fixed, floppy and removable disks; other magnetic media including tape; optical media such as compact disks (CDs) or digital video disks (DVDs” ([0169]).
Prosecution Insights