DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13, and 15-16 are presented for examination.
Claim 1 has been amended.
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 06-Nov-2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06-Nov-2025 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 101
On pgs. 6-7 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks dated 11/06/2025 (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the amended claims have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the invention into a practical application, with practical technical steps.
The examiner finds the additional amended text, performing an action in or on the reservoir geological formation for hydrocarbon recovery using the corrected reservoir model, to be recited at a general generic level that it amounts to no more than applying the exception to a field of use. The applicant is advised to revise the generic ‘an action’ to concrete practical applications supported by the specification.
The applicant is additionally reminded of 2106.05(f) of the MPEP:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art").
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection provided below.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Statutory category-process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes
“3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of data processing and analysis. The claim recites:
calculating a skeleton for the values of the at least one physical property, based on the 3D image, said skeleton corresponding to interconnected points describing the topology of the at least one physical property;
associating each point of the skeleton to a respective cell of the stratigraphic grid, based on the coordinates of the points of the skeleton and on the coordinates of the cells of the stratigraphic grid;
determining one reference layer of the stratigraphic grid for at least one set of points of the at least one skeleton;
calculating, for each point of the at least one set, a layer gap between the reference layer and the cell associated to said point; and
correcting the reservoir model based on the calculated layer gaps.
Calculating, associating, determining and correcting are mental processes and mathematical manipulations.
By way of example, one can mentally calculate a skeleton from the 3D image data points, associate the skeleton coordinates with cells of the stratigraphic grid, determine a layer to use a reference, calculate the difference between the reference and current grid points and correct the model based on the calculated gaps.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The additional elements are:
A computer implemented method for correcting a reservoir model, said reservoir model comprising a stratigraphic grid modeling a reservoir geological formation, said stratigraphic grid corresponding to a 3D grid of cells organized in layers, the method comprising:
obtaining a 3D image representing values of at least one physical property of the reservoir geological formation, said values of the at least one physical property obtained from seismic measurements performed on the reservoir geological formation;
performing an action in or on the reservoir geological formation for hydrocarbon recovery using the corrected reservoir model.
A Computer implementing the said method – mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
obtaining is an insignificant extra solution activity – mere data collection. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
performing an action is applying the exception to a field of use. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception?
No. The additional elements are a generic computer performing conventional functions and mere data gathering.
Claim 2 recites correcting the stratigraphic grid based on the calculated layer gaps, which is a mental and mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites correcting the reservoir model comprises correcting the seismic wave velocity field based on the calculated layer gaps which is a mathematical process under fails Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites determining a 3d correction grid adjusted to produce no modifications in the stratigraphic grid to cells associated to one or more wells made in the reservoir geological formation. which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites decomposing the skeleton in a plurality of sets of points associated to different sets of layer values, determining one reference layer for each set of points of the skeleton, and calculating a layer gap for each point of each set of points based on the reference layer associated to said set of points which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites converting the skeleton into depth scale prior to associating each point of the skeleton to a cell of the stratigraphic grid which is a mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites the layer gap for a point of the skeleton is calculated as the difference between the depth of the reference layer and the depth of the cell associated to said point which is a mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites the conversion in time scale or depth scale is done using a seismic wave velocity field of the reservoir model which is a mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites converting the stratigraphic grid into time scale prior to associating each point of the skeleton to a cell of the stratigraphic grid which is a mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites the layer gap for a point of the skeleton is calculated as the difference between the time of the reference layer and the time of the cell associated to said point which is a mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 recites the conversion in time scale or depth scale is done using a seismic wave velocity field of the reservoir model which is a mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12 recites calculating a skeleton comprises applying a predetermined threshold in order to identify significant values of the at least one physical property in the 3D image, the skeleton being calculated based on said significant values of the at least one physical property which is a mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 recites the 3D image corresponds to a 4D seismic image wherein the at least one physical property is a time lapse property representative of the variation of the reservoir geological formation between seismic measurements separated in time which is a adding an additional variable to the mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15 recites A non-transitory computer -readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, configure said at least one processor to carry out the method according to claim 1 which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16 recites A computer system for correcting a reservoir model modeling a reservoir geological formation, said computer system comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein said at least one processor is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roure (US20190369279A1) in view of Imho et al. (US20130151161A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Roure teaches a computer implemented method for correcting a reservoir model, said reservoir model comprising: a stratigraphic grid corresponding to a 3D grid of cells organized in layers, ([0037-0040] “The use of stratigraphic grid is explained first in the simpler 4D (i.e., surveys acquired in the same area with long time intervals there-between, the earliest survey being known as “base” and the later one(s) as monitor(s)), and PP-PS inversion contexts … ΔTVVTB is the time-thickness of the layer for the base vintage, ΔTVVTM=ΔTVVTB+ΔTVVT4D is the time-thickness of the layer for the monitor vintage.” Fig. 7 shows example 3D cells representing different layers).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a 3D image representing one physical property obtained from seismic measurements ([0003] “The seismic data undergoes a complex multi-phase processing to yield a structural image based on different properties inside the underground formation”).
associating each point of the skeleton to a respective cell of the stratigraphic grid, based on the coordinates of the points of the skeleton and on the coordinates of the cells of the stratigraphic grid (The skeleton is provided by Imho. [0051] “The outcomes of inversions are structural representation of the explored underground formation, which means, in other words, they map properties such as velocity, locating interfaces between different materials, fractures, porosity, etc” This mapping/associating taught by Roure is done on the stratigraphic grid as explained in [0036-0040]);
determining one reference layer of the stratigraphic grid for at least one set of points of the at least one skeleton ([0048] “ΔTWT0 is the reference layer thickness in time” and [0037] “surveys acquired in the same area with long time intervals there-between, the earliest survey being known as “base” and the later one(s) as monitor(s)), and PP-PS inversion contexts”).
calculating, for each point of the at least one set, a layer gap between the reference layer and the cell associated to said point ([0037-0040] ΔTWT is the difference between the base and the monitor representing the layer gap. Fig. 7 shows the per point difference relative to the reference layer).
correcting the reservoir model based on the calculated layer gaps (Fig. 5 illustrates how the stratigraphy gets updated through the layer gap calculations derived from the seismic 4D image).
PNG
media_image2.png
289
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing an action in or on the reservoir geological formation for hydrocarbon recovery using the corrected reservoir model ([0051] “The method further includes generating scenarios for exploiting resources in at least one layer of the underground formation based on the structural representation at 1340”).
Roure however does not appear to teach:
calculating a skeleton for the values of the at least one physical property, based on the 3D image
said skeleton corresponding to interconnected points describing the topology of the at least one physical property
Imho teaches calculating a skeleton for the values of the at least one physical property, based on the 3D image ([0026] “(a) picking seismic reflections from the data volume, and creating initial surfaces from the picks; (b) breaking surfaces into smaller parts (“patches”) that are predominantly topologically consistent; (c) merging neighboring patches in a topologically consistent way, thus extracting topologically consistent reflection-based surfaces from the seismic data volume; and (d) displaying the extracted surfaces (i.e., skeleton) for visual inspection or interpretation”);
said skeleton corresponding to interconnected points describing the topology of the at least one physical property ([0026] “merging neighboring patches in a topologically consistent way, thus extracting topologically consistent reflection-based surfaces from the seismic data volume; and (d) displaying the extracted surfaces (i.e., skeleton)” and [0027-0028] “ in step (c), the patches may be edited for topological consistency and topologically inconsistent patches may be deleted, or data voxels causing inconsistency may be deleted. In step (b) above, breaking surfaces into patches can be accomplished by shrinking initial surfaces to lines, removing joints in the lines to form more individual lines, shrinking individual lines to single-voxel points (characteristic points), and propagating the characteristic points along the initial surfaces by adding neighboring voxels to form patches of voxels.” The points which describe a characteristic [physical property] are connected to form patches).
Roure and Imho are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in hydrocarbon reservoir and geological modeling. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Roure and Imho to arrive at correcting hydrocarbon reservoir models through incorporating seismic data using a 3D stratigraphy organized in layers, skeletonization techniques, associating each point of the skeleton to a respective cell of the stratigraphic grid, iterating through the skeleton and correcting it through various different algorithms that calculate the difference between the various layers. While this is well established in Roure, Imho’s skeletization techniques that maintain topological consistency provide additional advantages that are missing in Roure. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine both arts to benefit from Imho’s skeletization and topologically consistent layers. “What is needed is a method that generates topologically consistent reflection horizons from seismic (or attribute) data or any geophysical data ... The present invention fulfills this need.” (Imho [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2, Roure in view of Imho teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 1. Roure further teaches correcting the reservoir model comprises correcting the stratigraphic grid based on the calculated layer gaps (Fig. 5 shows the stratigraphic grid updated based on the layer gaps).
Regarding Claim 5, Roure in view of Imho teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 1. Imho further teaches decomposing the skeleton in a plurality of sets of points associated to different sets of layer values, (Fig. 4 demonstrates decomposing surfaces into smaller consistent patches 42).
determining one reference layer for each set of points of the skeleton, and calculating a layer gap for each point of each set of points based on the reference layer associated to said set of points (Fig. 4 and [0074] the various patches are arranged in a topologically consistent method. They act as references when aligned against each other as well as other potential patches. Additionally, the deviations between the surfaces and the corresponding grid correspond to layer gaps. see also Fig 14 where the model is being repeated iterated over and decomposed into surfaces/plurality of sets of points as needed until a desired result is reached).
Regarding Claim 12, Roure in view of Imho teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 1. Imho further teaches applying a predetermined threshold in order to identify significant values of the at least one physical property in the 3D image, the skeleton being calculated based on said significant values of the at least one physical property ([0134] “Object generation can be performed in many different ways. Methods include thresholding... For thresholding, either the user or an algorithm specifies a threshold value. All points with lower (or higher) values are assigned to the background. The remaining data points may be used as point objects or converted to continuous curves, surfaces, or bodies”).
Regrading Claim 15, Imho teaches non-transitory computer -readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor ([0100] “ This scheme also lends itself to parallelization—the computation can be performed by different processors or computers at the same time” and [0026] “saving their digital representations to computer memory or data storage.”).
The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 16 is directed to a computer system comprising at least one processor and a memory, to carry out the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason Claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roure (US20190369279A1) in view of Imho et al. (US20130151161A1) and further in view of Valensi et al. (US20210223424A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Roure in view of Imho teaches the method in claim 1. However, Roure in view of Imho do not teach wherein the reservoir model comprises a seismic wave velocity field associated to the reservoir geological formation, and wherein correcting the reservoir model comprises correcting the seismic wave velocity field based on the calculated layer gaps.
Valensi teaches wherein the reservoir model comprises a seismic wave velocity field associated to the reservoir geological formation, and wherein correcting the reservoir model comprises correcting the seismic wave velocity field based on the calculated layer gaps ([0015] “determining a seismic velocity parameter model w(x), said seismic velocity parameter model associating for each location x of the area a seismic velocity parameter w, said seismic velocity parameter model … determining an optimal seismic velocity parameter model wopt(x) by computing a plurality of iterations, each iteration comprising calculating and optimizing a cost function, said cost function being a measure of discrepancies between the recorded seismic wavefields data and the modeled seismic wavefields data obtained using the seismic velocity parameter model w(x)”).
Roure, Imho and Valensi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in geological modeling. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Roure, Imho and Valensi to arrive at correcting the wave velocity based on the difference calculations between the cells/meshes. A POSITA would have been motivated to do as to refine the model and produce more accurate granular results (Valensi [0010] “provide a fast and efficient method for generating a very accurate image of a subsurface of an area of interest from seismic data”) .
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roure (US20190369279A1) in view of Imho et al. (US20130151161A1) and further in view of Geovariances (time to depth conversion whitepaper) referred to hereafter as Geovariances.
Regarding Claim 4, Roure in view of Imho teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 1. Roure further teaches correcting the reservoir model comprises determining a 3D correction grid for correcting the stratigraphic grid (Fig 5 shows the correction of the 3D grid).
However, Roure in view of Imho does not teach 3D correction grid being adjusted to produce no modifications in the stratigraphic grid to cells associated to one or more wells made in the reservoir geological formation.
Geovariances teaches 3D correction grid being adjusted to produce no modifications in the stratigraphic grid to cells associated to one or more wells made in the reservoir geological formation. (page 3 paragraph 3: “Applying geostatistics to achieve depth conversion means that the resulting structural model is tied to the wells and also respects the spatial continuity of the variables. The same mathematical model can be used for stochastic simulations”).
Roure, Imho and Geovariances are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in geological modeling. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Roure, Imho and Geovariances to arrive at correcting the 3D stratigraphic grid while maintaining the integrity of the well data in the model. Geovariances explains the motivation to do so (Page 1 Lines:4-6 “The advantage of using geostatistical methods is that they fit the data in one step and allow quantifying the uncertainty attached to the prediction by means of the generation of equiprobable realizations”).
Regarding Claim 6, Roure in view of Imho teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 1. However, Roure in view of Imho does not teach converting the skeleton into depth scale prior to associating each point of the skeleton to a cell of the stratigraphic grid, the skeleton being initially in time scale.
Geovariances teaches converting the skeleton into depth scale prior to associating each point of the skeleton to a cell of the stratigraphic grid, the skeleton being initially in time scale. (Geovariances addresses the depth to time conversion in detail. Moreover, Page 5 lines 20-24 address it in a multilayer context “Simultaneous approach for multi-layer depth conversion Multivariate techniques can be used for simultaneous multi-layer depth conversion”).
Roure, Imho and Geovariances are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in geological modeling. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Roure, Imho and Geovariances to arrive at calculating the difference between the layers in depths, and using a seismic wave velocity model for the time and depth conversions. Geovariances explains the motivation to do so (Page 3 Line:17-22 “the geostatistics workflow allows exploration and understanding of the data to optimize their use. The exploratory data analysis step helps identifying outliers, clusters, trends and correlation between variables. It is an essential step in depth conversion to determine the best method to use, or the most appropriate velocity function parameters”).
Regarding Claim 7, Roure in view of Imho and Geovariances teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 6. Geovariances further teaches the layer gap for a point of the skeleton is calculated as the difference between the depth of the reference layer and the depth of the cell associated to said point. (Fig 1 shows the layer depth values misalignment across the model. Page 9, “Multi-layer case Both methods described above are applied for direct depth conversion or layer-cake depth conversion. An important issue of time-to-depth conversion is deciding how to process the different horizons interpreted from seismic data…. A global approach…. all the horizons are used to estimate the depth from a given layer as long as a correlation exists between them.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Roure in view of Imho teaches the method in claim 6. Geovariances further teaches the conversion in time scale or depth scale is done using a seismic wave velocity field of the reservoir model (Page 3, paragraph 2 “Page 3 paragraph 2: The conversion is done using a velocity model. Such a model can be generated using velocity fields (full 3D) or layer-based methods (single or multi–layer)”).
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roure (US20190369279A1) in view of Imho et al. (US20130151161A1) and further in view Thore et al. (US20130176822A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Roure in view of Imho teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 1. However, Roure in view of Imho does not teach converting the stratigraphic grid into time scale prior to associating each point of the skeleton to a cell of the stratigraphic grid, the stratigraphic grid being initially in depth scale.
Thore teaches converting the stratigraphic grid into time scale prior to associating each point of the skeleton to a cell of the stratigraphic grid, the stratigraphic grid being initially in depth scale. ([0065] “This modeling is illustrated by FIG. 2 where the first step consists in converting the logs Vp(z), ρ(z) obtained as a function of the depth in the well into logs Vp(t), ρ(t) expressed as a function of the propagation time of the waves”).
Roure, Imho and Thore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in geological modeling. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Roure, Imho and Thore to arrive at correcting the 3D stratigraphic grid using depth or time and using the seismic wave velocity for transformation from depth to time. A POSITA would have been motivated to convert from depth to time in order to be able to evaluate the cost function required for optimization (Thore [0024] “comparing, on a same timescale, the other measured seismic trace associated with the position of the boundary with the computed seismic pseudo-trace in order to evaluate the cost function.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Roure in view of Imho and Thore teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 9. Thore further teaches converting into the time domain in order to perform the limitation of claim 10: the layer gap for a point of the skeleton is calculated as the difference between the time of the reference layer and the time of the cell associated to said point. ([0048] “the simulated base and monitor seismic traces being computed with a same depth-time conversion law”). Once converted into time domain, calculating the layer gap becomes routine and is discussed fully in claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 11, Roure in view of Imho and Thore teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 9. Thore further teaches the conversion in time scale or depth scale is done using a seismic wave velocity field of the reservoir model. ([0065] “This modeling is illustrated by FIG. 2 where the first step consists in converting the logs Vp(z), ρ(z) obtained as a function of the depth in the well into logs Vp(t), ρ(t) expressed as a function of the propagation time of the waves to be able to be convolved according to (1). The depth-time conversion law used for that is directly deduced from the evolution of the speed Vp along the well.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Roure in view of Imho teaches the computer-implemented method in claim 1. However, Roure in view of Imho does not teach the 3D image corresponds to a 4D seismic image wherein the at least one physical property is a time lapse property representative of the variation of the reservoir geological formation between seismic measurements separated in time.
Thore teaches the 3D image corresponds to a 4D seismic image wherein the at least one physical property is a time lapse property representative of the variation of the reservoir geological formation between seismic measurements separated in time. ([0003] “It relates more particularly to the so-called 4D seismic techniques. In these techniques, there are first seismic recordings, obtained in a first phase during a campaign of “base” measurements (“base survey”), for example before a hydrocarbon reservoir is placed in production, and there is a subsequent campaign of measurements (“monitor survey”), for example after a few years of operation of the reservoir, to obtain second seismic recordings. The base and monitor seismic recordings (or seismic traces) are compared to estimate variations of physical parameters of the geological layers in the area explored.”).
Roure, Imho and Thore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in geological modeling. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Roure, Imho and Thore to arrive at correcting the 3D stratigraphic grid using depth or time, using the seismic wave velocity for transformation from depth to time and vice versa as well as using 4D seismic images. A POSITA would have been motivated to extend the model to 4d (Thore [0008] “An object of the invention is to add to the 4D seismic techniques, notably by making them take into account geological and dynamic constraints.”).
Conclusion
Ejofodomi et al (US20140076543A1): Discloses skeletonized microseismic events.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR DARWISH whose telephone number is (571)272-4779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Thurs. 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, Emerson Puente can be reached on 571-272-3652. 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.
/A.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 November 25, 2025