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 references listed in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 08/01/2025 and 01/26/2026 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms).
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.
Claims 1 and 20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are considered to be vague and indefinite because it includes recitations that appear abbreviated, specifically FWI, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the limitations represent. Recommendation is made to recite “full wave inversion” as supported by the specification.
As to claims 3-10, they depend from claim 1; therefore, they contain the same problem as explained above. For examination on the merits, the claim(s) will be interpreted as best understood.
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, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for producing a high-fidelity, high-resolution seismic image of a subsurface of a wellsite, the method comprising: receiving seismic data from wellsite equipment disposed at the wellsite; recovering an initial estimation of an earth model based on the seismic data; performing a depth migration workflow based on the initial estimation of the earth model, wherein the depth migration workflow is a least-squares FWI-derived reflectively (LS-FDR) workflow; revising the initial estimation of the earth model based on results of the depth migration workflow to produce an updated estimation of the earth model; and generating the seismic image from the updated estimation of the earth model.…
and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “receiving seismic data from wellsite equipment disposed at the wellsite” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional element, “generating the seismic image from the updated estimation of the earth model” is directed to post-solution activity. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 3-11 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
To note: Claims 11, 12-15 and 20 are patent eligible with regards to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claims, taken as a whole amount to a practical application of the judicial exception see MPEP 2106.04(d) (a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are allowed. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is objected to over the cited prior art because none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the other claimed limitations, performing a depth migration workflow based on the initial estimation of the earth model, wherein the depth migration workflow is a least-squares FWI-derived reflectively (LS-FDR) workflow; revising the initial estimation of the earth model based on results of the depth migration workflow to produce an updated estimation of the earth model…
Claim 12 is considered to be allowable over the cited prior art because none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the other claimed limitations, performing a depth migration workflow based on the initial estimation of the earth model; revising the initial estimation of the earth model based on the results of depth migration workflow to produce an updated estimation of the earth model, wherein revising the initial estimation of the earth model based on the results of the depth migration workflow to produce the updated estimation of the earth model comprises compensating for transmission loss and even illumination within the seismic data…
Claim 20 is objected to over the cited prior art because none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the other claimed limitations, performing a depth migration workflow based on the initial estimation of the earth model, wherein the depth migration workflow is a least-squares FWI-derived reflectively (LS-FDR) workflow, wherein the LS-FDR workflow comprises utilizing a primary-only wavefield, multiple wavefields, or a combination thereof; revising the initial estimation of the earth model based on results of the depth migration workflow to produce an updated estimation of the earth model, wherein the initial estimation of the earth model is revised repeatedly using the LS-FDR workflow…
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VALENSI et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0223424 A1) discloses a method for generating an image of a subsurface area using seismic data;
XU et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0238249 A1) discloses a seismic reflection full waveform inversion method for generating a velocity model based on reflected seismic data;
ZHANG et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0302293 A1) discloses methods and devices using improved FWI techniques for seismic exploration of subsurface formations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights