DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. This Office Action is made in response to the communications filed on November 19, 2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response To Arguments/Amendments
Claim Objections: The Applicant’s amendments have been considered and overcome the objections to the claims.
35 USC 112(a): The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
35 USC 112(b): The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant states that the claims have been amended to address the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, but the amendments do not appear to address the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. The Applicant is advised to schedule an interview to explain their reasoning.
35 USC 101: With regard to the 35 USC 101 rejections, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments are addressed here in the order presented in the response.
Example 39: Example 39 illustrates an improvement to the training of a machine learning model. The Applicant’s claim is non-analogous at least for the reason that no model is trained by the claims. The claims use mental processes and mathematical concepts to evaluate data, much like Electric Power Group. This argument is not persuasive.
The Alleged non-Recitation of A Mathematical Concept: The operations performed by the claim features indicated in the rejection as mathematical concepts are mere place holders for mathematical operations as expressed in the Applicant’s specification. For example, paragraph [0091] states, “Any of the previously mentioned inversion processes can be formulated as a constrained least squares problem solved by minimizing a composite objective function consisting of a data misfit, intra-domain operators, and other inter-domain operators. In this disclosure, only the subset of inter-domain operators that are constraining the shape of the parameter distributions, also called structure operators, are considered. It is contemplated that other penalty functions can also be used such as "compositional" or rock-physics. The composite objective function takes the form shown by Equation [4]” There are more examples presented in the body of the rejection below. This argument is not persuasive.
The Alleged Non-Recitation of a Mental Process: The Applicant makes a naked statement that the methods cannot be performed in the mind. The Applicant has failed to indicate why that is the case and has also failed to even indicate that the method cannot be performed with a pen, paper, and/or a calculator. The Applicant has provided no arguments or amendments to rebut the demonstration that the claim elements are evaluations, as presented in the rejection. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive.
The Alleged recitation of Specific and Unconventional Steps for Achieving An Improved Technological Result: The Applicant states that the features of the claims, which largely recite abstract ideas, are unconventional. However, the conventionality of the mathematical concepts and mental processes is not at issue. For a claim to be eligible, the claim must rely to some extent on the additional limitations to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) or combine with the other elements of the claim, including the abstract idea, to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that is indicative of an inventive concept. As demonstrated in this and the prior office actions, that is not the case. The additional limitations do not contribute to eligibility at all but are purely tangential to any alleged inventive concept. Should the Applicant wish to rebut this assertion with a prima facie case under the auspices of the MPEP, office policy, statutes, and case law, to which this examination and Office are bound, the Applicant must specify the additional limitations that confer eligibility. While the Applicant has touted that the claim as a whole confers advantages identified in the specification, the Applicant has not identified any additional limitation that at least in some way confers these advantages. This is because the advantages are conferred entirely by the abstract idea. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Alleged Improvement To Oil-Drilling Technology: The Applicant asserts that the claim recites additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, an improvement to oil-drilling. The Applicant then quotes an alleged advantage of the claim from the specification. The Applicant does not, however, identify any of these elements or how they are integrated into a practical application. As is, the claim takes in data and outputs data based on mathematical equations and evaluations that could be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper (as demonstrated in greater detail below). There are no additional elements IN THE CLAIM ITSELF that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to yield an improvement to any technology because the result is a calculated velocity that is not utilized IN THE CLAIM for anything practical. Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion: For at least these reasons, the rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
35 USC 102/103: The amendments have modified the character of the independent claims; however, the amended claims still overcome the art for at least the reasons provided below.
Invitation To Interview: The Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Because this is a new round of prosecution, the Applicant is entitled to one interview in this new round. An interview could likely help to clarify issues and advance prosecution. The Applicant is invited to initiate the interview at their earliest convenience.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “using the the update. This is a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “wherein the conditional generative adversarial network comprises a discriminator trained to map the 1.5 dimensional FWI to a calibrated FWI velocity, using the uphole velocity data as a conditional input.” However, that is not what a discriminator does. A discriminator is used in the training phase of a model, but is not used at inference time. As indicated in the Applicant’s specification paragraph [0087], “[t]he discriminator outputs a single scalar representing the probability that the input data come from the training set rather than the generated samples of G.” This output probability is used to train the model. However, when the model is actually being used to calibrate data at inference time, the discriminator is not a part of the determination. This is also evident from FIG. 9b.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in 9b, the discriminator takes in the calibrated FWI velocity as an input. It does not generate the calibrated FWI velocity from the FWI velocity. The network does that without the discriminator to generate inferences from the trained model. The output of the discriminator is a probability used by a penalty/objective function to determine the loss used to update the network during training. However it does not map one velocity/velocity model to another. Concordantly, the specification does not disclose the feature at issue, and the feature is new matter.
Dependent claims dependent from the rejected claims are rejected based on their dependency.
35 USC 112(b)
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“Operating a seismic body wave”
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “operating a plurality of seismic body waves.” It is unclear how one operates a seismic body wave. It does make sense to generate seismic body waves (See the Applicant’s specification paragraph [0042]).
“Common”
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “common.” Common is a relative term and must be removed from the claims. See paragraph [0050] of the Applicant’s specification which state that it means similar. MPEP 2173.05(b) explicitly states that “similar” is a relative term.
Dependent claims dependent from the rejected claims are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Directed To A Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Products of Nature
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as reciting Laws of Nature and/or Natural Phenomena. Specifically, the limitation, “operate/operating a plurality of seismic body waves to be lowered in an uphole to generate seismic waves akin to the MPEP 2106.04(b) examples: “electromagnetism or steam power, O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.)” “vi. electromagnetism to transmit signals, O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1853)”
With regard to Step 2A, Prong Two, the other elements of the claim are merely tangential to the “operation” of the seismic waves, even if the other steps use the output data from the seismic waves. The other steps of the claim do not integrate the “operating” of waves into a particular application for this reason and for the same reasons demonstrated relative to the abstract ideas identified in the next section. The Applicant is advised to amend the claim feature to recite a device that generates the seismic waves. The other independent claims are rejected for at least the same reasons, and the dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency.
Subject Matter Eligibility
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical operation, which are abstract ideas.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions. […] The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept […] a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): “Mathematical Relationships. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Claim 1 recites (claim features in italics, abstract ideas in bold, paragraph references are to the Applicant’s specification):
A computer-implemented method for generating a subsurface velocity model to improve an accuracy of seismic imaging of a subterranean formation, the method comprising: (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0033], [0059]-[0077] Mathematical model generation/evaluation)
[…]
generating, based on the respective candidate pilot traces, a respective plurality of corrected seismic traces for each of the plurality of common midpoint-offset bins; (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0033], [0059]-[0065] Surface-consistent residual static correction)
grouping the respective pluralities of corrected seismic traces into a plurality of enhanced virtual shot gathers (eVSGs); (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0067] Sorting, stacking)
generating, based on the plurality of common midpoint-offset bins, a common-midpoint (CMP) velocity model; (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0033], [0074] First break picks used to evaluate mean rtavel times per XYO bin)
calibrating the CMP velocity model using uphole velocity data to generate a pseudo-3 dimensional (3D) velocity model; (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0033], [0074] Geostatistic techniques)
performing, based on the plurality of enhanced virtual shot gathers and the pseudo-3D velocity model, a 1.5-dimensional full waveform inversion (FWI); (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0033], [0076]-[0077] Summative gradients, structure tomography, [0091] “Any of the previously mentioned inversion processes can be formulated as a constrained least squares problem solved by minimizing a composite objective function consisting of a data misfit, intra-domain operators, and other inter-domain operators. In this disclosure, only the subset of inter-domain operators that are constraining the shape of the parameter distributions, also called structure operators, are considered. It is contemplated that other penalty functions can also be used such as "compositional" or rock-physics. The composite objective function takes the form shown by Equation [4]”)
calibrating the 1.5 dimensional FWI by using a [determining element/mind], […] wherein the [determining element/mind] is trained to map the 1.5 dimensional FWI to a calibrated FWI velocity, using the uphole velocity data as a conditional input (evaluation: it appears that this was intended to reflect the evaluation presented in [0042]-[0043]; [0085]-[0094], but see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection.)
determining the subsurface velocity model based on the calibrated 1.5 dimensional FWI; and (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0033], [0077], [0089] Equation 8)
The bolded method steps of claim 1 are elements of an evaluation, a mental process, which can be performed in the mind of a person or with a pen, paper, or calculator. ([0033], [0059]-[0077], [0085]-[0100]) Further, the bolded method steps of claim 1 as described in the claim and specification include and/or are expressed as mathematical calculations or mathematical relationships, which are mathematical concepts. ([0033], [0059]-[0077], [0084]-[0100]). Being a mental process and a mathematical concept, the method and bolded steps are an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
MPEP 2106.04(d): “[A]fter determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. 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. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II.”
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “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), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.
MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The additional elements:
computer-implemented method
a conditional general adversarial network
the conditional adversarial network trained to map [elements of the inference]
The computer implementation is a recitation of a general-purpose computer and uses a model that is not trained by the method with no specific configurations to execute the claimed method. As such, these features implement the recited abstract idea on a generic computer, and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two.
operating a plurality of seismic body waves to be lowered in an uphole to generate seismic waves;
receiving, from a plurality of seismic sensors, for a plurality of common midpoint-offset bins each comprising a respective plurality of seismic traces, respective candidate pilot traces representing the plurality of common midpoint-offset bins;
The operating and receiving steps merely gather information (respective candidate traces) for evaluation. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Mere Data Gathering, an analogous example is provided: “i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation,” “ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction,” “vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood.” Under MPEP 2106.05(g), receiving data for evaluation is not significant in meaningfully limiting the invention, and the receiving of the data is necessary to the evaluations and mathematical operations of the claim. Under MPEP 2106.05(g). The receiving step adds nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity, so it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two.
Also, generating seismic data using known means merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of seismology, and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
MPEP 2106.05(I) “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. […] Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.”
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “[I]mplementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means,” “iii. Detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample,”
MPEP 2106.05(g): “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).”
computer-implemented method
a conditional general adversarial network
the conditional adversarial network trained to map [elements of the inference]
The computer implementation is a recitation of a general-purpose computer and uses a model that is not trained by the method with no specific configurations to execute the claimed method. As such, these features implement the recited abstract idea on a generic computer, and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), do not combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
operating a plurality of seismic body waves to be lowered in a uphole to generate seismic waves;
receiving, from a plurality of seismic sensors, for a plurality of common midpoint-offset bins each comprising a respective plurality of seismic traces, respective candidate pilot traces representing the plurality of common midpoint-offset bins;
The operating and receiving steps merely gather information (respective candidate traces) for evaluation using well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, for example, by transmitting and sensing seismic waves. This is akin to the examples of determining a level of a biomarker in blood by any means or detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample, which are WURC under MPEP 2106.05(d). This is evident from the references on the record essentially all discussing transmitting seismic waves through media to be detected at another location, for example: (1) Colombo ‘617 [0014]; Colombo ‘519 Summary of Invention; Li ‘044, [0025]; Denli ‘047, [0051]; Vakkabhaneni ‘915 [0015]; Bakulin (NPL), Abstract; Bohlen (NPL), Abstract. Because the operating and receiving steps are WURC and insignificant extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), they fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Also, should it be found otherwise with respect to the operating step, which states “operating a seismic body wave,” this is a law of nature, as it is claiming a physical phenomenon and is also an element of the abstract idea.
Also, generating seismic data using known means merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of seismology, and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, there are no additional limitations in claim 1 that furnish claim 1 with an inventive concept to ensure that claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the bolded abstract idea.
Claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 10 and 19 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical operation, which are abstract ideas. They recite the same features as claim 1.
Claims 10 and 19 recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
In addition to the features of claim 1:
Claim 10 further recites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media coupled to one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for generating a subsurface velocity model to improve an accuracy of seismic imaging of a subterranean formation, the operations comprising: ([0114])
Claim 19 further recites:
one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: ([0108])
Non-transitory computer-readable storage media and processors, as expressed in the claims without any specific features dedicated to the inventive concept, are generic computer components. Under MPEP 2106.05(f), these added limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claims 10 and 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims provide an Inventive Concept?
No.
Similarly, because the additional limitations of claims 10 and 19 are generic computer elements, under MPEP 2106.05(f) the added limitations do not combine with the abstract idea to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would render the combination inventive.
Claims 10 and 19 do not provide an inventive concept and are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Further, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are ineligible for the following reasons.
The dependent claims are abstract ideas that merge with the abstract ideas of the independent claims from which the dependent claims depend. Specifically, the bolded steps of claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are elements of an evaluation, a mental process, which can be performed in the mind of a person or with a pencil and paper. Further, the bolded method steps of claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, as described in the claim and specification include and/or are expressed as mathematical calculations or mathematical relationships, which are mathematical concepts. Being a mental process and a mathematical concept, the bolded steps are an abstract idea. Demonstrations of rationale for characterizing the limitations of claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 as abstract ideas are provided in associated parentheses.
Claims 2, 11, and 20
The claims recite:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
pre-processing the uphole velocity data by: (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0095] Spline fitting, travel time to velocity conversion, and interval velocity interpolation)
performing cubic Hermite spline fitting on the uphole velocity data to generate spline fitted velocity data; (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0096]-[0098] Hermite spline fitting)
iteratively simplifying the spline fitted velocity data using a Douglas-Peucker method; and (evaluation, mathematical relationship/calculation: [0099] spline simplification/travel time-to-velocity conversion)
interpolating the simplified velocity data to generate an interval uphole velocity model. (evaluation, mathematical relationship and calculation: [0100] interval velocity interpolation)
Claims 3 and 12
The claims recite:
wherein calibrating the CMP velocity model using the uphole velocity data comprises:
interpolating the uphole velocity data using a regionalized parameter distribution based on the CMP velocity model. ([0035] Kriging or co-Kriging, geostatistical techniques). Also, interpolation has been found to be mathematical operation (See the Chart of Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions – See In re Giltin “interpolation in multiple dimensions is
Claims 4 and 13
The claims recite:
wherein interpolating the uphole velocity data using the regionalized parameter distribution is performed using at least one of kriging, co-kriging, or a machine learning module. ([0035] Kriging or co-kriging, geostatistical techniques)
Claims 5 and 14
The claims recite:
wherein interpolating the uphole velocity data is further performed using at least one of near-surface transmission residual statics or near-surface transmission amplitude residuals, wherein the near surface transmission residual statics and the near-surface transmission amplitude residuals are generated based on the respective pluralities of corrected seismic traces. ([0063] Residual statistics calculation)
Claims 6 and 15
The claims recite:
generating, based on the pseudo-3D velocity model, gradient-based coupling operators; and ([0077] Summative gradients)
applying the gradient-based coupling operators to constrain a 3D tomography process to generate a 3D velocity model calibrated with upholes. ([0091]-[0094] Structure algorithms module)
Claims 7 and 16
The claims recite:
wherein performing the 1.5-dimensional full waveform inversion is further based on the 3D velocity model calibrated with upholes ([0077] Penalty function to constrain 3D tomography, input to 1.5D FWI)
Claims 8 and 17
The claims recite:
wherein the machine learning module is a conditional image to image mapping network, wherein the subsurface velocity model is an input to the machine learning module, and the uphole velocity and a distribution of CMP velocity are conditional inputs, wherein the machine learning module is trained by simultaneously updating weights and biases of an encoder function by descending stochastic gradient of logistic loss functions. ([0084]-[0085] Autoencoder with conditional constraints and a U-net structure)
Claims 9 and 18
The claims recite:
wherein the machine learning module is a semisupervised Generative adversarial networks (GAN) framework. ([0086]-[0090] Objective function in Gan framework)
The features of claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 merge with the abstract ideas of the respective claims from which they depend and do not provide further additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the abstract idea to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are ineligible.
Status of Claims under 35 USC 102/103
The present claims are not rejected under 35 USC 102/103, when the claims are given a fair reading under the BRI in view of the instant specification. In particular, in view of MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the Examiner notes paragraphs [0077], [0079], and [0085]-[0094] of the Applicant’s specification.
In particular, the Applicant claims in the independent claims,
calibrating the CMP velocity model using uphole velocity data to generate a pseudo-3 dimensional (3D) velocity model;
performing, based on the plurality of enhanced virtual shot gathers and the pseudo-3D velocity model, a 1.5-dimensional full waveform inversion (FWI); and
calibrating the 1.5 dimensional FWI by using a conditional generative adversarial network, wherein the conditional generative adversarial network comprises a discriminator trained to map the 1.5 dimensional FIW to a calibrated FWI velocity, using the […] uphole velocity data as a conditional input.
determining the subsurface velocity model based on the 1.5 dimensional FWI.
First, a pseudo-3D model is generated by calibrating a common midpoint velocity model using uphole velocity data. Then, a 1.5D FWI is performed based on the pseudo-3D velocity model. Determining the subsurface model (from the preamble) based on the 1.5D FWI. The prior art rejection demonstrated that a combination of Colombo ‘617 ([0006], [0014]-[0015], [0054], [0063]-[0065], [0070], [0074], [0081], FIGs. 7A-7C), Bohlen (Page 330, Title; Page 332, Inversion; Page 332, Last Paragraph – Page 331, First Paragraph), and Bakulin (Page 1005, Right Column, Third Bullet Point) teaches these steps. Also, the newly introduced references of record teach conducting the inversion itself using GANs.
The second “calibrating” step that was added by amendment in the response is not taught by these references. The closest prior art is the Denli reference ([0011], [0062]-[0064] used to reject claims 8-9 and 17-18, which discusses the use of general adversarial networks (GANs). While the Denli reference taught general use of a GAN, it would require impermissible hindsight to map the cited references to the newly amended “calibrating” claim limitation of the independent claims. For one, the amended claim feature distinguishes from the prior art for reasons expressed with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above. Further, were the calibrating step to indicate that the generator were used to conduct the specific calibration of the 1.5 dimensional FWI, rather than the discriminator, it would require impermissible hindsight to use the cited references to teach the feature. Accordingly, the allowability over art is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie, Pengfei & Yin, Yanshu & Hou, JiaGen & Chen, Mei & Wang, Lixin. (2021). Seismic Inverse Modeling Method based on Generative Adversarial Network. 10.1002/essoar.10507329.1. (Teaches using a GAN to perform Seismic inversion)
Wu, B.; Meng, D.; Zhao, H. Semi-Supervised Learning for Seismic Impedance Inversion Using Generative Adversarial Networks. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050909 (Teaches using a GAN to perform Seismic inversion)
Mosser, L., Dubrule, O. & Blunt, M.J. Stochastic Seismic Waveform Inversion Using Generative Adversarial Networks as a Geological Prior. Math Geosci 52, 53–79 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-019-09832-6 (Teaches using a GAN to perform Seismic inversion)
(From a prior Office Action)
US 2022/0075915 A1 to Vallabhaneni et al. (Teaches using GANs to improve seismic data of different dimensions) (Newly Introduced In This Action)
US 10386519 B2 to Colombo et al. (Teaches detail in conditioning seismic data for inversion)
US 2023/0032044 A1 to Li et al. (Teaches using conditional GANs with seismic data)
Yang, Fangshu & Ma, Jianwei. (2021). Revisit Geophysical Imaging in A New View of Physics-informed Generative Adversarial Learning. 10.48550/arXiv.2109.11452. (Year: 2021) (Teaches GAN networks for generating improved models)
AlAli, A., Anifowose, F. Seismic velocity modeling in the digital transformation era: a review of the role of machine learning. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol 12, 21–34 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-021-01304-0 (Teaches applying Machine Learning to conduct full wave inversion)
Ãkos Gyulai, Tamas Ormos, A new procedure for the interpretation of VES data: 1.5-D simultaneous inversion method, Journal of Applied Geophysics, Volume 41, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-17, ISSN 0926-9851, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(98)00034-2. (Year: 1999) (Teaches 1.5D joint wave inversion on VES data)
Richardson, Alan. (2018). Seismic Full-Waveform Inversion Using Deep Learning Tools and Techniques. 10.48550/arXiv.1801.07232. (Year: 2018) (Teaches Using deep learning to perform full wave inversions on seismic data)
Z. Zhang, Y. Wu, Z. Zhou and Y. Lin, "VelocityGAN: Subsurface Velocity Image Estimation Using Conditional Adversarial Networks," 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2019, pp. 705-714, doi: 10.1109/WACV.2019.00080. (Year: 2019) (Teaches using conditional GANs to generate velocity models)
NPL: “Physics-driven deep-learning inversion with application to transient electromagnetics” by Colombo et al. (White paper for this invention by the inventors).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188