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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment, filed 10/30/2025, has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed 10/22/2025, has been received, entered into the record, and considered. See attached form PTO-1449.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 16 recite “a method/system for converting a first dataset comprising a plurality of first data samples to a second dataset comprising a plurality of second data samples, the plurality of first data samples regularly spaced from each other by a first sampling interval, the plurality of second data samples regularly spaced from each other by a second sampling interval, the first sampling interval being defined differently than the second sampling interval, the plurality of first data samples and the plurality of second data samples being seismic data samples, the method and comprising: obtaining a further sampling interval to be used as the second sampling interval; and for each one of the plurality of second data samples, deriving a respective second data sample by computing the second data sample from one or more first data samples of the plurality of first data samples using an interpolation method, the one or more first data samples being selected based on at least the first sampling interval and the further sampling interval”.
These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting " a processor, a memory", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, but for the processor, the memory, the steps of “obtaining a further sampling interval…; and for each one of the plurality of second data samples, deriving a respective second data sample…” in the context of this claim encompasses a user gathering, collecting and organizing data mentally, with the aid of pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional element – using “the processor, the memory” to “obtaining a further sampling interval…; and for each one of the plurality of second data samples, deriving a respective second data sample…”, these limitations amount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
“obtaining a further sampling interval…; and for each one of the plurality of second data samples, deriving a respective second data sample…”; this limitation is mere generic transmissions and presentations of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The processor, the memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “obtaining a further sampling interval…; and for each one of the plurality of second data samples, deriving a respective second data sample…”. 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
The limitations “obtaining a further sampling interval…; and for each one of the plurality of second data samples, deriving a respective second data sample…” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is a system to perform the method of claim 1; is similar in scope to claim 1; and therefore, are rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-15, and 17-25 merely add further details of the abstract steps recited in claims 1, 16, respectively, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15, and 17-25 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 13, 16, 17, 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turquais et al (US Pub No. 2018/0267188).
As to claims 1, 16, Turquais teaches a method for converting a first dataset comprising a plurality of first data samples to a second dataset comprising a plurality of second data samples, the plurality of first data samples regularly spaced from each other by a first sampling interval, the plurality of second data samples regularly spaced from each other by a second sampling interval, the first sampling interval being defined differently than the second sampling interval, the plurality of the first data samples and the plurality of second data samples being seismic data samples, the method comprising (i.e. FIG. 4 shows an example common-shot gather 400 of five example traces of a reflected wavefield measured by five adjacent receivers located along the streamer 108 shown in FIG. 3. Vertical axis 401 represents time. Horizontal axis 402 represents trace numbers with trace “1” representing the seismic data generated by the receiver 118 located closest to the source 104 and trace “5” representing the seismic data generated by the receiver 118 located farther away from the source 104, [0071]; This disclosure is directed to processes and systems that generate seismic images of a subterranean formation from recorded seismic data gathers obtained in a marine seismic survey of the subterranean formation. The recorded seismic data gathers are typically coarsely sampled … Linear combinations of the atoms are regularized and interpolated based on the shape of reflection events in the recorded seismic data gather to generate regularized and interpolated patches over a finer receiver-coordinate grid. The regularized and interpolated patches replace the original patches in the recorded seismic data gather to obtain a regularized and interpolated seismic data gather, [0050]):
obtaining a further sampling interval to be used as the second sampling interval (i.e. The waves that compose the reflected wavefield may be generally reflected at different times within a range of times following the initial source wavefield, [0056]; In block 605, the up-going seismic data is resampled. For example, the traces of up-going seismic data may be resampled to have the same sampling rate, such as a sample rate of 4 data points per millisecond, [0076]); and
for each one of the plurality of second data samples, deriving a respective second data sample from one or more first data samples of the plurality of first data samples using an interpolation method, the one or more first data samples being selected based on at least the first sampling interval and the further sampling interval (i.e. Because the receivers undulate during seismic data recording, the receiver coordinates of the traces of seismic data are not regularly spaced during recording of the seismic data. In block 609, regularization and interpolation may be applied to the resampled, up-going seismic data. Regularization corrects irregularly spaced receiver coordinates of the traces to points of a regularly spaced grid of receiver coordinates. Interpolation replaces corrupted traces or fills in traces of the resampled, up-going seismic data at regular grid points, such as interpolating traces of seismic data from traces of coarsely sampled seismic data in the cross-line direction where receivers are spaced farther apart than in the in-line direction, [0072]).
As to claims 2, 17, Turquais teaches importing a data file comprising the first dataset (i.e. Seismic data processing is applied to the recorded seismic data to generate an image of a subterranean formation surveyed in a marine seismic survey. Seismic data processing is typically implemented in a series of modules or routines, each module comprising a series of computer implemented machine-readable instructions. The output of one module is input to a subsequent module. For example, seismic data processing comprises modules that attenuate the various forms of noise, regularize the coordinate locations of the traces, interpolate missing or corrupted seismic data, and migrate the seismic data to generate an image of the subterranean formation, [0074]).
As to claims 8, 23, Turquais teaches:
locating the one or more first data samples relevant to the respective second data sample (i.e. Because the receivers undulate during seismic data recording, the receiver coordinates of the traces of seismic data are not regularly spaced during recording of the seismic data. In block 609, regularization and interpolation may be applied to the resampled, up-going seismic data. Regularization corrects irregularly spaced receiver coordinates of the traces to points of a regularly spaced grid of receiver coordinates. Interpolation replaces corrupted traces or fills in traces of the resampled, up-going seismic data at regular grid points, such as interpolating traces of seismic data from traces of coarsely sampled seismic data in the cross-line direction where receivers are spaced farther apart than in the in-line direction, [0072]); and
calculating the value of the respective second data sample from the one or more first data samples using the interpolation method (i.e. Because the receivers undulate during seismic data recording, the receiver coordinates of the traces of seismic data are not regularly spaced during recording of the seismic data. In block 609, regularization and interpolation may be applied to the resampled, up-going seismic data. Regularization corrects irregularly spaced receiver coordinates of the traces to points of a regularly spaced grid of receiver coordinates. Interpolation replaces corrupted traces or fills in traces of the resampled, up-going seismic data at regular grid points, such as interpolating traces of seismic data from traces of coarsely sampled seismic data in the cross-line direction where receivers are spaced farther apart than in the in-line direction, [0072]).
As per claim 9, Turquais teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the interpolation method is a linear interpolation method (i.e. The atoms are constrained to represent linear or nonlinear reflection events in the recorded seismic data gather … Linear combinations of the atoms are regularized and interpolated based on the shape of reflection events in the recorded seismic data gather to generate regularized and interpolated patches over a finer receiver-coordinate grid, [0050]).
As per claim 10, Turquais teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the interpolation method is a spline interpolation method (i.e. The atoms are constrained to represent linear or nonlinear reflection events in the recorded seismic data gather, [0050]; The arrival times versus source-receiver offset is generally longer with increasing source-receiver offset. As a result, the wavelets that correspond to a formation surface, or a subterranean interface, are collectively called a “reflection event.” The reflection events in common-shot gather 400 are examples of linear and parabolic reflection events. Line 420 represents the wavelets 410-414 recorded in the gather as a linear reflection event. Curve 422 represents the wavelets 415-419 recorded in the gather as a parabolic reflection event, [0072]).
As to claims 13, 24, Turquais teaches:
merging first plurality of first data samples to a single file (i.e. FIG. 39 shows a second demonstration of the effectiveness of the interpolation processes described above with reference to FIG. 12 in a series of gathers 3901-3904 and corresponding frequency spectra 3905-3908. Gather 3901 is seismic data obtained from a raw shot gather of pressure data recorded in an actual marine seismic survey. The seismic data was recorded at a sample rate of 2 samples per millisecond and with a receiver spacing of 12.5 m. The data of gather 3901 was down sampled leaving traces spaced apart by 25 m to obtain down-sampled gather 3902 and corresponding frequency spectrum 3906, [0175]); and
converting the single file into a second data file defined by the second sampling interval defined differently than the first sampling interval (i.e. Because the receivers undulate during seismic data recording, the receiver coordinates of the traces of seismic data are not regularly spaced during recording of the seismic data. In block 609, regularization and interpolation may be applied to the resampled, up-going seismic data. Regularization corrects irregularly spaced receiver coordinates of the traces to points of a regularly spaced grid of receiver coordinates. Interpolation replaces corrupted traces or fills in traces of the resampled, up-going seismic data at regular grid points, such as interpolating traces of seismic data from traces of coarsely sampled seismic data in the cross-line direction where receivers are spaced farther apart than in the in-line direction, [0072]).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 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.
Claims 3, 5, 14, 18, 19, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turquais et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0267188), in view of Pinho et al. (US Pat No. 10,169,359).
As to claims 3, 18, Turquais teaches the data file comprises a block header defining a sampling frequency of the plurality of first data samples, the method comprising:
deriving the further sampling interval from the sampling frequency of the plurality of first data samples (i.e. FIG. 39 shows a second demonstration of the effectiveness of the interpolation processes described above with reference to FIG. 12 in a series of gathers 3901-3904 and corresponding frequency spectra 3905-3908. Gather 3901 is seismic data obtained from a raw shot gather of pressure data recorded in an actual marine seismic survey. The seismic data was recorded at a sample rate of 2 samples per millisecond and with a receiver spacing of 12.5 m. The data of gather 3901 was down sampled leaving traces spaced apart by 25 m to obtain down-sampled gather 3902 and corresponding frequency spectrum 3906, [0175]).
Although Turquais does not seem to expressly teach “a block header”, Pinho teaches this limitation (i.e. FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary SEG-Y file structure 400. As shown in FIG. 4, the exemplary SEG-Y file structure 400 is organized as follows: Binary Header 420: comprises a 400-byte record that contains important information about the file itself such as sample interval, trace length, and data encoding, among others, col. 13, lines 32-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Turquais, Pinho before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Turquais to include the limitations as taught by Pinho. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to convert acoustic vibrations into streams of digital samples that are continuously collected at intervals having a constant duration and data is collected from many shots simultaneously, in view of Pinho (col. 12, lines 30-53), as doing so would give the added benefit of storing seismic samples as seismic traces, the length and number of which being directly related to the extent of the area being observed, its depth, and the sampling interval of the acquisition, as taught by Pinho (col. 12, lines 30-53).
As to claims 5, 19, Turquais teaches the second sampling interval is an integer sampling interval with microsecond precision (i.e. The waves that compose the reflected wavefield may be generally reflected at different times within a range of times following the initial source wavefield, [0056]; In block 605, the up-going seismic data is resampled. For example, the traces of up-going seismic data may be resampled to have the same sampling rate, such as a sample rate of 4 data points per millisecond, [0076]).
As to claims 14, 25, Turquais does not seem to specifically teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the second data file is a SEG-Y data file, the single file is a non-SEG-Y data file.
Pinho teaches this limitation (i.e. FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary SEG-Y file structure 400. As shown in FIG. 4, the exemplary SEG-Y file structure 400 is organized as follows: Binary Header 420: comprises a 400-byte record that contains important information about the file itself such as sample interval, trace length, and data encoding, among others, col. 13, lines 32-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Turquais, Pinho before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Turquais to include the limitations as taught by Pinho. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to convert acoustic vibrations into streams of digital samples that are continuously collected at intervals having a constant duration and data is collected from many shots simultaneously, in view of Pinho (col. 12, lines 30-53), as doing so would give the added benefit of storing seismic samples as seismic traces, the length and number of which being directly related to the extent of the area being observed, its depth, and the sampling interval of the acquisition, as taught by Pinho (col. 12, lines 30-53).
Claims 4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turquais et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0267188), in view of Pagnanelli et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0238152).
As to claims 4, 20, Turquais teaches the second sampling interval is
specified by a user, the method further comprising: setting the second sampling interval as the further sampling interval (i.e. The waves that compose the reflected wavefield may be generally reflected at different times within a range of times following the initial source wavefield, [0056]; In block 605, the up-going seismic data is resampled. For example, the traces of up-going seismic data may be resampled to have the same sampling rate, such as a sample rate of 4 data points per millisecond, [0076]).
Turquais does not seem to expressly teach “… is specified by a user”.
Pagnanelli teaches this limitation (i.e. user-specified constraints and objectives [0159]; accumulator input 475 is equal to manual frequency control input 480, based on the configuration of multiplexer 430, [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Turquais, Pagnanelli before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Turquais to include the limitations as taught by Pagnanelli. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to accept an input signal that is continuous in time and continuously variable, in view of Pagnanelli ([0024]), as doing so would give the added benefit of converting a continuous-time, continuously variable signal into a sampled and quantized signal, as taught by Pagnanelli ([0025]).
Claims 6, 7, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turquais et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0267188), in view of Grant et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0278734).
As to claims 6, 21, Turquais does not seem to specifically teach the method
according to claim 1, wherein a start time of the plurality of second data samples is specified by a user.
Grant teaches this limitation (i.e. seismic shooting plan, vessel traffic data, weather data, route, depth, position, location, planned path of survey vessel, exclusion zone, etc. The time information can include one or more of: start, end, duration, schedule, frequency, exclusion period, etc., [0098] system users B at the seismic operator 30 b interact with the planning tool 34 operating on the computer system 35 to input operational information 70, such as unauthorized vessel observations, local operation plans (tasks, positions, times, etc.), streamer positions, seismic plan, weather observations, mammal observations, etc., [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Turquais, Grant before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Turquais to include the limitations as taught by Grant. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to input operational information such as unauthorized vessel observations, local operation plans (tasks, positions, times, etc.), streamer positions, seismic plan, weather observations, mammal observations, in view of Grant ([0127]), as doing so would give the added benefit of enabling the system to obtain and use environmental information about the marine field from various sources, such as observations from operators as well as data from satellites including weather, imaging, and GPS satellites, as taught by Grant ([0025]).
As to claims 7, 22, Turquais does not seem to specifically teach the
method according to claim 1, wherein an end time of the plurality of second data samples is specified by the user.
Grant teaches this limitation (i.e. seismic shooting plan, vessel traffic data, weather data, route, depth, position, location, planned path of survey vessel, exclusion zone, etc. The time information can include one or more of: start, end, duration, schedule, frequency, exclusion period, etc., [0098] system users B at the seismic operator 30 b interact with the planning tool 34 operating on the computer system 35 to input operational information 70, such as unauthorized vessel observations, local operation plans (tasks, positions, times, etc.), streamer positions, seismic plan, weather observations, mammal observations, etc., [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art having the teaching of Turquais, Grant before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Turquais to include the limitations as taught by Grant. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to input operational information such as unauthorized vessel observations, local operation plans (tasks, positions, times, etc.), streamer positions, seismic plan, weather observations, mammal observations, in view of Grant ([0127]), as doing so would give the added benefit of enabling the system to obtain and use environmental information about the marine field from various sources, such as observations from operators as well as data from satellites including weather, imaging, and GPS satellites, as taught by Grant ([0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Chevon et al. (US Pub. 20110118984) – discloses retrieving seismic data from seismic section in bitmap format.
Poole et al. (US Pat. 10288753) discloses method for designature of seismic data acquired using moving source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRANDA LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4112. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached on 571-272-8352. 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.
/MIRANDA LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights