DETAILED ACTION
Non-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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility launder 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
Analysis has been updated based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 (exemplary) recites a system.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a system that comprises the limitations of:
at least one processor; and
an application that, when executing on the at least one processor, performs stored operations comprising
receiving sensor data sensitive to one or more of strain and strain-rate of a fiber;
selecting a set of discrete locations along the fiber to act as a set of reciprocal source points;
sorting the sensor data into a set of reciprocal source point gathers to generate sorted data;
modelling synthetic receiver data via reciprocity by injecting synthetic source data into a seismic model using the set of reciprocal source points; and
updating the seismic model to reduce error between the sorted data and the synthetic receiver data.
The claimed system simply describes a series of steps, based on receiving, selecting, sorting, modelling and updating. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed with pen and paper and is an idea of itself. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mental processes” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using a processor and a fiber to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The processor is a general-purpose processor (see para [0033 and 0050] of the specification) that performs general-purpose functions of receiving, selecting, sorting, modelling and updating. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and have additional elements present in the claims of a processor and a fiber. These additional limitations of a processor and a fiber are mere generic implantations of storing and compiling/organizing data which can be performed by pen and paper and falls under enumerated group of “mental processes” and do not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 1, 11 and 20.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims include the additional elements of distributed acoustic sensor and physical sources however these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed of organizing and comparing data as discussed with respect to the independent claims above. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willen (US 20190196038 A1) in view of Shen (“Ocean Bottom Distributed Acoustic Sensing for Oceanic Seismicity Detection and Seismic Ocean Thermometry”, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Willen teaches a method comprising: receiving sensor data (OBS seismic data 200). (Paragraph 49, Fig.2)
Willen also teaches selecting a set of discrete locations along the fiber to act as a set of reciprocal source points (common-receiver gathers 202, and synthetic data 204,). (Paragraph 49, Fig.2)
Willen also teaches sorting the sensor data into a set of reciprocal source point gathers (common-receiver gathers 202) to generate sorted data. (Paragraph 49, Fig.2)
Willen also teaches modelling synthetic receiver data via reciprocity by injecting synthetic source data (synthetic data 204) into a seismic model (initial earth model 100) using the set of reciprocal source points. (Paragraph 49, Claim 3, Fig.2)
Willen also teaches updating the seismic model (model update 112, and an updated earth model) to reduce error between the sorted data and the synthetic receiver data. (Paragraph 49, Claims 1, 5, Fig.2)
Willen does not explicitly teach receiving sensor data sensitive to one or more of strain and strain-rate of a fiber.
Shen teaches receiving sensor data sensitive to one or more of strain and strain-rate of a fiber. (Section 2. Data)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Willen to incorporate receiving sensor data sensitive to one or more of strain and strain-rate of a fiber as taught by Shen in order to offer a cost‐efficient and scalable solution for deploying large‐aperture, long‐term, dense seismic arrays.
Regarding claim 2, Willen does not explicitly teach wherein modeling the synthetic receiver data further comprises: injecting the synthetic source data as a pair of seismic sources separated by a gauge length.
Shen teaches wherein modeling the synthetic receiver data further comprises: injecting the synthetic source data as a pair of seismic sources separated by a gauge length. (Section 2. Data)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Willen to incorporate wherein modeling the synthetic receiver data further comprises: injecting the synthetic source data as a pair of seismic sources separated by a gauge length as taught by Shen in order to offer a cost‐efficient and scalable solution for deploying large‐aperture, long‐term, dense seismic arrays.
Regarding claim 3, Willen teaches wherein the seismic model is a full waveform inversion model and is one of an elastic model, a viscoelastic model, and an acoustic model. (Paragraph 11, 49, Fig.2)
Regarding claim 4, Willen does not explicitly teach wherein receiving the sensor data further comprises: receiving the sensor data acquired with a receiver system comprising the fiber as an optical fiber as part of a distributed acoustic sensor (DAS).
Shen teaches wherein receiving the sensor data further comprises: receiving the sensor data acquired with a receiver system comprising the fiber as an optical fiber as part of a distributed acoustic sensor (DAS). (Abstract, Section 2. Data)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Willen to incorporate wherein receiving the sensor data further comprises: receiving the sensor data acquired with a receiver system comprising the fiber as an optical fiber as part of a distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) as taught by Shen in order to offer a cost‐efficient and scalable solution for deploying large‐aperture, long‐term, dense seismic arrays.
Regarding claim 5, Willen teaches wherein sorting the sensor data further comprises: organizing the sensor data for a reciprocal source point gather, of the set of reciprocal source point gathers, to be for a discrete location for the reciprocal source point gather. (Paragraphs 49-50, Fig.2)
Regarding claim 6, Willen teaches wherein modeling the synthetic receiver data further comprises: injecting the synthetic source data with directivity mimicking a directional response of a sensitivity. (Paragraphs 49, 25, Claims 2-3, Fig.2)
Willen does not explicitly teach sensitivity to one or more of strain and strain-rate of the fiber.
Shen teaches sensitivity to one or more of strain and strain-rate of the fiber. (Section 2. Data)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Willen to incorporate sensitivity to one or more of strain and strain-rate of the fiber as taught by Shen in order to offer a cost‐efficient and scalable solution for deploying large‐aperture, long‐term, dense seismic arrays.
Regarding claim 7, Willen teaches wherein modeling the synthetic receiver data further comprises: recording a wavefield at a set of locations of a set of physical sources. (Paragraph 49, Claim 3, Fig.2)
Regarding claim 8, Willen teaches wherein updating the seismic model further comprises: repeatedly modelling the synthetic receiver data and updating the seismic model to reduce the error. (Paragraphs 49-50, Fig.2)
Regarding claim 9, Willen teaches selecting an initial seismic model from which to update and form the seismic model. (Paragraphs 48-50, Fig.2)
Regarding claim 10, Willen teaches presenting a seismic image generated from one or more of an initial seismic model and the seismic model. (Paragraphs 24, 29, Claim 5, Fig.2)
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 11 and 20, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 12, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Regarding claims 13, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 13, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claims 14, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 14, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Regarding claims 15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 15, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Regarding claims 16, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 16, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Regarding claims 17, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 7. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 17, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Regarding claims 18, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 18, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Regarding claims 19, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 9. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 19, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights