DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated August 22, 2023.
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination
Priority
ADS dated 12/15/2022 has been reviewed. There is no domestic benefit or foreign priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 8/22/2023 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 11/15/2022 have been reviewed. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structural map must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract dated 11/15/2022 has been reviewed. It has 134 words and 10 lines and no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
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.
Claim 1. Step 1: YES.
The claim recites: “A method”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites, in pertinent part “generating a [dataset] based on received data;
generating a [estimation: A] based on received data;
and generating an [estimation: B] using an interpolation model to interpolate [dataset] and [estimation: A]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the received data is “seismic data” and “potential fields data”, the dataset is “a set of average velocity controls”, estimation A is “a depth to basement model”, and estimation B is “an average velocity model” these elements merely link the abstract idea to the field of subsurface modeling. These recited elements simply characterize the abstract idea but they do not rely upon or use the abstract idea as required by a practical application. The claim is merely “A method, comprising…generating” and indeed, the claimed method merely generates data and mathematical expressions; however, the data and expressions generated are never used by any other elements and therefore there are no additional elements which rely upon or use the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: No.
Every element of the claim is either a method of generating mathematical information or is data used in said method of generation. The result of the claim is simply the generation of mathematical information and there are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea which are significantly more (an inventive concept) because while the received data is “seismic data” and “potential fields data”, the dataset is “a set of average velocity controls”, estimation A is “a depth to basement model”, the function is “an interpolation model”, interpolate is “perform calculations on”, and estimation B is “an average velocity model” these elements merely link the abstract idea to the field of sedimentary simulation. Such limitations are not indicative of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2. STEP 1: YES. A method.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “generating a variogram model based on the controls [dataset]” and “the interpolation model interpolates the [dataset], the variogram model, and [estimation: A]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3. STEP 1: YES. A method.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “wherein the interpolation model is a Kriging with [parameter: p] model” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4. STEP 1: YES. A method.
STEP 2A PRONG: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “wherein [parameter: p] is based on [estimation: A]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5. STEP 1: YES. A method.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “generating a [graph] of a subsurface formation using [estimation: B]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6. STEP 1: YES. A method.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “wherein the subsurface formation includes a sediment-basement interface” which merely links the abstract idea to the field of invention.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7. STEP 1: YES. A method.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “wherein the data includes data and data” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8. STEP 1: YES. A method.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “ [calculating] [dataset] for the data” and “ [calculating] [dataset] for the data”.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9. STEP 1: YES.
The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions”, which is a machine.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites, in pertinent part “generate a [dataset] based on received data;
generate a [estimation: A] based on received data;
and generate an [estimation: B] using an interpolation model to interpolate [dataset] and [estimation: A]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the received data is “seismic data” and “potential fields data”, the dataset is “a set of average velocity controls”, estimation A is “a depth to basement model”, and estimation B is “an average velocity model” these elements merely link the abstract idea to the field of subsurface modeling. These recited elements simply characterize the abstract idea but they do not rely upon or use the abstract idea as required by a practical application. The claim is merely a device “capable of storing…instructions, which when executed…generate” and indeed, the claimed method merely generates data and mathematical expressions; however, the data and expressions generated are never used by any other elements and therefore there are no additional elements which rely upon or use the abstract idea.
While the claim recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to:” this is not indicative of a practical application because these are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and the mere use of a computer is not a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites a computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer and the recited computer is a generalized one and is therefore not a particular machine. Moreover, as the claim is merely performing mathematical calculations the claim does not make a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. While the claim characterizes the mathematical variable in the context of heating a building this merely links the calculations to the technology of heating. This however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10. STEP 1: YES. A machine.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “generate a variogram model based on controls [dataset]” and “the interpolation model interpolates [dataset], the variogram model, and [estimation: A]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
There are no additional elements within the claim to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11. STEP 1: YES. A machine.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “wherein the interpolation model is a Kriging with [parameter: p] model” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12. STEP 1: YES. A machine.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “wherein [parameter: p] is based on [estimation: A]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13. STEP 1: YES. A machine.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “generate a [graph] of a subsurface formation using [estimation: B]” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14. STEP 1: YES. A machine.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “wherein the data includes data and data” which is a recitation of mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculation.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15. STEP 1: YES. A machine.
STEP 2A: YES. The claim recites in pertinent part “ [calculate] [dataset] for the data” and “ [calculate] [dataset] for the data”.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible 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.
Claims 1, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey_2013 (SEISMIC VELOCITY MODEL BUILDING: AN AID FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF SUBSURFACE- A CASE STUDY FROM CAMBAY BASIN, INDIA) in view of Haldorsen_2005 (GB 2409101 A) in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 (Contouring geological data with a computer) in view of Florio_2018 (Mapping the Depth to Basement by Iterative Rescaling of Gravity or Magnetic Data) in view of Bedrosian_2007 (Lithology-derived structure classification from the joint interpretation of magnetotelluric and seismic models).
Claim 1. Pandey_2013 makes obvious A method comprising: (page 1: “Present study deals with velocity modeling…by average velocity method”) generating (page 4: “These error values are further grided to generate error grid”; page 4: “The Final Depth Grid, thus generated, is exported to use for map generation purpose”) a set of average velocity (page 1: “velocity modeling enables the use of velocity information from both seismic and wells, providing a much broader data set for critical review”; page 4: “The resultant Interval Velocity volume is used to extract average velocity corresponding to active time grid in X,Y and Z format where Z is the average velocity while X, Y are the coordinates of Inline and Cross Line cross overs in the active time grid”) controls (page 3: “A data bank of 239 wells was used, spread evenly across the seismic volume, to ensure that sufficient control points were available…These control point were used as guides”) based on [utilized] seismic data (page 1: “velocity modeling enables the use of velocity information from both seismic and wells, providing a much broader data set for critical review.”; page 3: “Data utilized: Well data (239 vertical wells, Well Markers, Mapped and Gridded Time Seismic Horizon, Seismic Velocity Cube (Stacking Velocity), TD / Sonic Log (77 vertical wells)”) generating an average velocity model (page 1: “SEISMIC VELOCITY MODEL BUILDING”; page 1: “Present study deals with velocity modeling…by average velocity method derived by stacking and interval velocities of the area”; page 3: “In order to create depth maps at desired stratigraphic levels Velocity Modeling was undertaken using the available stacking velocity data”; page 6: “The depth pictures obtained by average velocity modeling better demonstrate the sub surface undulations at stratigraphic levels”) using an [gridding] model to [grid] the set of average velocity controls (page 4: “Z is the average velocity…These X, Y and Z values are gridded using available gridding algorithms (Collocated co-kriging or global method).”; page 4: “It is also advisable to export, independently, the error and average velocity grid so that these too can be mapped for the purpose of quality check.”; page 4: “Figure.7: Validation of gridded average velocity values”).
While Pandey_2013 expressly recites generating a set of average velocity controls based on available seismic data, Pandey_2013 does not expressly recite received in reference to seismic data. Haldorsen_2005, however, expressly recites received seismic data (page 6 lines 23-24: “The computer software may allow the computer processor to process the received seismic data and produce a high-frequency geological subsurface image”; page 7 lines 13-14: “to be separated from seismic data received by seismic receivers”).
Pandey_2013 and Haldorsen_2005 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 and Haldorsen_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 teaches generating a set of average velocity controls based on utilized seismic data. Haldorsen_2005 teaches subsurface analysis using received seismic data. Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 teaches a method of processing seismic data that utilizes an aspect of the seismic data (page 1 lines 11-13: “This invention relates to the processing of seismic data and, more particularly, to the processing of seismic data obtained using a vibratory seismic source where the processing method is able to utilize harmonic energy as signal rather than noise”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine generating a set of average velocity controls based on utilized seismic data from Pandey_2013 with received seismic data and the method of utilizing data from Haldorsen_2005 for the benefit of generating a set of average velocity controls based on received seismic data to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Pandey_2013 and Haldorsen_2005 do not expressly recite generating a depth to basement model based on received potential fields data nor do they expressly recite generating an average velocity model using an interpolation model to interpolate both the set of average velocity controls and the depth to basement model.
AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, however, makes it obvious that gridding is interpolation. (par 12: “gridding…uses data at measured control points to interpolate values to a set of grid nodes at a predefined spacing. These values are then used to estimate positions of contours crossing each grid rectangle.”).
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, and AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 and AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 teaches gridding the set of average velocity controls. AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 teaches that gridding is a process that involves the interpolation of the values being gridded. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine gridding the set of average velocity controls from Pandey_2013 with the categorization of gridding as a process of interpolation from AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 for the benefit of using an interpolation model to interpolate data to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, and AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 do not expressly recite generating a depth to basement model based on received potential fields data; and generating an average velocity model using an interpolation model to interpolate both the average velocity controls and the depth to basement model.
Florio_2018, however, makes obvious generating a depth to basement model based on [measured] potential fields data (title: “Mapping the Depth to Basement by Iterative Rescaling of Gravity or Magnetic Data”; page 9101: “I propose a new method to estimate the morphology of the basement under sedimentary basins, starting from measured gravity or magnetic anomalies…the data can be immediately rescaled in terms of depth to the basement”; page 9105: “I simply use this approximately linear relationship between (pseudo-) gravity data and the depth to source to transform the potential field data in terms of depth, thus obtaining a model of the basement depths”; page 9109: “This nonlinear rescaling generates a first approximation basement more similar to the true basement than the gravity field shape”).
While Florio_2018 expressly recites generating a depth to basement model based on measured potential fields data, Florio_2018 does not expressly recite received in reference to potential fields data.
Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 makes obvious received data obtained from measurements (page 7 lines 8-17: “After the seismic receivers obtain one series of measurements, the wireline tool (and its associated seismic receivers) are repositioned in the well bore… to be separated from seismic data received by seismic receivers positioned at these locations”).
Florio_2018 and Haldorsen_2005 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Florio_2018 and Haldorsen_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been that Florio_2018 teaches generating a depth to basement model based on measured potential fields data. Haldorsen_2005 teaches received data obtained from measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to combine generating a depth to basement model based on measured potential fields data from Florio_2018 with the received data obtained from measurements from Haldorsen_2005 for the benefit of generating a depth to basement model based on received potential fields data to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Additionally, Florio_2018 makes obvious using an interpolation model to interpolate the depth to basement model. (page 9103: “A different approach to the recovering of the morphology of a buried basement consists in interpolating single depth-to-basement estimates obtained by using semiautomated methods”; page 9103: “The detail that can be obtained from the interpolation of the depth-to-basement estimates often allows to delineate only the broad trend of basement undulations”).
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, and Florio_2018 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 and Florio_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 teaches generating an average velocity model using an interpolation model to interpolate the set of average velocity controls. Florio_2018 teaches using an interpolation model to interpolate the depth to basement model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine generating an average velocity model using an interpolation model to interpolate the set of average velocity controls from Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 with using an interpolation model to interpolate the depth to basement model from Florio_2018 for the benefit of choosing a velocity modeling methodology as per data availability (Pandey_2013 page 6) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, and Florio_2018 do not expressly recite interpolating BOTH the set of average velocity controls and the depth to basement model.
Bedrosian_2007, however, makes obvious interpolating both velocity and another type of data (page 740: “(iii) interpolate both resistivity and velocity values”).
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, Florio_2018, and Bedrosian_2007 are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 and Bedrosian_2007. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 teaches generating an average velocity model using an interpolation model to interpolate the set of average velocity controls and the depth to basement model. Bedrosian_2007 teaches interpolating both velocity and another type of data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine generating an average velocity model using an interpolation model to interpolate the set of average velocity controls and the depth to basement model from Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 with interpolating BOTH velocity and another type of data from Bedrosian_2007 for the benefit of choosing a velocity modeling methodology as per data availability (Pandey_2013 page 6) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 9. The limitations of claim 9 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the device to: (page 4 lines 5-7: “Another aspect of the invention involves a computer useable medium having computer readable program code means embodied therein that allows the inventive method to be carried out”; claim 18: “a computer useable medium having computer readable program code means embodied therein for processing seismic data obtained using a seismic vibrator, the computer readable program code means in said article of manufacture comprising”).
Claims 2, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 in view of in view of Kelly_2007 (A crustal seismic velocity model for the UK, Ireland and surrounding seas) in view of Li_2018 (An automated variogram modeling method with high reliability fitness and estimates).
Claim 2. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 make obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 makes obvious additional limitations generating ; and
wherein the interpolation model interpolates the set of average velocity controls, , and the depth to basement model.
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, Florio_2018, and Bedrosian_2007 do not recite generating a variogram model based on the set of average velocity controls nor do they recite using an interpolation model to interpolate…the variogram model.
Kelly_2007, however, makes obvious [determining] a variogram model based on the set of velocity controls (page 1175 par 3: “The spatial continuity of the variable is described by the variogram model. This is determined through analysis (variography) of experimental variograms constructed from the sample data”; page 1176 figure 4: “Experimental and model variograms for…velocity data”; page 1177 par 1: “For all the velocity variograms the short lags show near linear behaviour (Figs 4a–c)”; page 1177 par 4: “The velocity variogram model consists of three structures”).
Additionally, Kelly_2007 makes obvious average velocity (page 1177 par 7: “Therefore, to reproduce the velocity structure as accurately as possible, the cell containing the base–sediment interface is assigned a weighted average of the…velocities”; page 1181 par 1: “These lower average crustal velocities reflect a more detailed record of the sedimentary basins and the determination of velocity based on seismic profiles, rather than general type sections”).
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, Florio_2018, Bedrosian_2007, and Kelly_2007 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 with Kelly_2007. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 teaches generating a set of average velocity controls. Kelly_2007 teaches determining a variogram model based on velocity data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine generating a set of average velocity controls from Pandey_2013 with determining a variogram model based on the velocity data from Kelly_2007 for the benefit of describing the spatial continuity of velocity (Kelly_2007 page 1175 par 3: “The spatial continuity of the variable is described by the variogram model”) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, Florio_2018, Bedrosian_2007, and Kelly_2007 do not explicitly recite using the interpolation model to interpolate…the variogram model.
Li_2018, however, makes obvious using the interpolation model to the variogram model modeling variogram interpolation result”; page 49 par 5: “This interpolation-based variogram modeling method, however, indicates that adequately incorporating the minimization of kriging accuracy into the LS modeling process is essential and feasible”).
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, Florio_2018, Bedrosian_2007, Kelly_2007, and Li_2018 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 with Li_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 teaches using an interpolation model to interpolate the set of average velocity controls and the depth to basement model. Li_2018 teaches interpolating the variogram model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine using an interpolation model to interpolate the set of average velocity controls and the depth to basement model from Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 with interpolating the variogram model from Li_2018 for the benefit of considering the fit of the variogram and interpolation accuracy (Li_2018 page 48 par 1: “This paper proposes an automated variogram modeling framework, which simultaneously considers the fit of the experimental variogram and interpolation accuracy in the modeling variogram interpolation result”) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 10. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 9.
The limitations of claim 10 are substantially the same as those of claim 2 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2. Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 makes obvious additional limitation wherein the processor is further configured to: (page 6 lines 19-25: “The surface electronics equipment may also contain a computer processor to process the received data…The computer software may allow the computer processor to process the received seismic data and produce a high-frequency geological subsurface image in accordance with the inventive methodology taught herein”).
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 in view of Trevisani_2017 (Insights into bedrock surface morphology using low-cost passive seismic surveys and integrated geostatistical analysis)
Claim 3. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 makes obvious wherein the interpolation model is a Kriging model (page 4: “These X, Y and Z values are gridded using available gridding algorithms (Collocated co-kriging or global method)”).
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, Florio_2018, and Bedrosian_2007 do not expressly recite Kriging with external drift.
Trevisani_2017, however, makes obvious additional limitation Kriging with external drift (page 186 par 1: “The explorative geostatistical analysis of the data coupled with the use of interpolation kriging techniques permit the extraction of relevant information on the resonance properties of the subsoil. The utilized approach, based on kriging with external drift…permits the researcher to take into account auxiliary information”; page 191 par 1: “This relation can be taken into account with specific algorithms (Goovaerts, 1997; Hengl et al., 2004 and 2007) such as co-kriging and kriging with external drift”).
Pandey_2013, Haldorsen_2005, AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014, Florio_2018, Bedrosian_2007, and Trevisani_2017 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called subsurface analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 and Trevisani_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 teaches the interpolation model being a Kriging model. Trevisani_2017 teaches Kriging with external drift. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Kriging model as the interpolation model from Pandey_2013 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 with Kriging with external drift from Trevisani_2017 for the benefit of relating the primary variable of interest with a secondary variable of interest (Trevisani page 191 par 1: “In fact, in some circumstances the primary variable of interest (e.g., HVSR measurements) can be related to one or more secondary variables (e.g., the depth of the bedrock). This relation can be taken into account with specific algorithms…such as co-kriging and kriging with external drift”) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 4. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 in view of Trevisani_2017 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Trevisani_2017 makes obvious wherein the external drift is based on the depth to basement model (page 186 par 1: “The utilized approach, based on kriging with external drift…permits the researcher to take into account auxiliary information”; page 191 par 1: “geostatistical algorithms permit the integrated use of secondary/auxiliary information correlated to the primary property of interest. In fact, in some circumstances the primary variable of interest (e.g., HVSR measurements) can be related to one or more secondary variables (e.g., the depth of the bedrock). This relation can be taken into account with specific algorithms…such as…kriging with external drift”).
Claim 11. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 9.
makes obvious all the limitations of claim 9. The limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 3 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3.
Claim 12. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 in view of Trevisani_2017 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 11. The limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as those of claim 4 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4.
Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007.
Claim 5. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Pandey_2013 makes obvious additional limitation further comprising generating a structural map using the average velocity model (page 1: “A seismic velocity model is necessary to map depth and thickness of subsurface layers interpreted from seismic reflection images. Depth conversion is a way to remove the structural ambiguity inherent in time and verify structure. A good approach to depth conversion, especially in a complex geological environment, is first to perform a depth migration with a velocity model optimized for structural imaging”; page 4: “The Final Depth Grid, thus generated, is exported to use for map generation purpose”; page 5: “Figure.11: Time & Depth structure map at K-IX Top…Figure.12: Time & Depth structure map at K-III Top”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of claim 1 from Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 with generating a structural map using the average velocity model from Pandey_2013 for the benefit of removing the structural ambiguity (page 1: “A seismic velocity model is necessary to map depth and thickness of subsurface layers interpreted from seismic reflection images. Depth conversion is a way to remove the structural ambiguity inherent in time and verify structure. A good approach to depth conversion, especially in a complex geological environment, is first to perform a depth migration with a velocity model optimized for structural imaging”; page 6: “It has been seen from the time and depth maps at these levels that the preservation of major structures (deeper and shallower event) are retained”).
Claim 13. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 9. The limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as those of claim 5 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 5. Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 makes obvious additional limitation wherein the processor is further configured to: (page 6 lines 19-25: “The surface electronics equipment may also contain a computer processor to process the received data…The computer software may allow the computer processor to process the received seismic data and produce a high-frequency geological subsurface image in accordance with the inventive methodology taught herein”).
(4) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007.
Claim 6. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Florio_2018 makes obvious wherein the subsurface includes a sediment-basement interface (page 9101: “I propose a new method to estimate the morphology of the basement under sedimentary Basins”; page 9102: “Other problems may arise at great depths or when the density contrast at the bedrock-sediment interface becomes very small”; page 9102: “recovering the density-contrast surface between sediment and basement even in presence of a variable density profile in the vertical direction”).
Florio_2018 does not expressly recite formation in reference to the subsurface. Pandey_2013, however, teaches a subsurface formation (page 1: “A seismic velocity model is necessary to map the depth and thickness of subsurface layers”; page 4: “At K-IX level, there is a good match (around 97%) between the Formation tops and the depths values read from the depth map at well positions”; page 6: “Thus at K-III level, there is a good match (around 98%) between the Formation tops and the depths values read from the depth map at well positions”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine sediment-basement interface from Florio_2018 with the subsurface formation from Pandey_2013 for the benefit of mapping the depth and thickness of subsurface layers (Pandey_2013 page 1).
(5) Claims 7, 8, 14, 15 are rejected as being unpatentable over Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007.
Claim 7. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 makes obvious wherein the received seismic data (page 6 lines 23-24: “The computer software may allow the computer processor to process the received seismic data and produce a high-frequency geological subsurface image”; page 7 lines 13-14: “to be separated from seismic data received by seismic receivers”) includes surface seismic data and check shot data (page 9 lines 4-8: “For instance, an estimate of the actual source signature (as discussed above) can be used instead of the seismic vibrator's reference signal. The travel times can also be estimated from previous well logging or check shot measurements or even potentially from subsurface velocity models obtained from surface seismic measurements”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pandey_2013 and Haldorsen_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been that Pandey_2013 teaches determining average velocity controls based on received seismic data and Haldorsen_2005 teaches that surface seismic data and check shot data are both received seismic data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining average velocity controls based on the received seismic data from Pandey_2013 with the categorization of surface seismic data and check shot data as received seismic data from Haldorsen_2005 for the benefit of choosing a methodology of velocity modeling as per data availability (Pandey_2013 page 6) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all limitations of claim 7. Pandey_2013 makes obvious determining average velocity controls for the seismic data; and determining average velocity controls for the data. Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 makes obvious that seismic data can include surface seismic data and check shot data.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining average velocity controls based on seismic data from Pandey_2013 with the categorization of surface seismic data and check shot data as seismic data from Haldorsen_2005 for the benefit of choosing a methodology of velocity modeling as per data availability (Pandey_2013 page 6) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 14. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all limitations of claim 9. The limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as those of claim 7 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 7.
Claim 15. Pandey_2013 in view of Haldorsen_2005 in view of AAPG Wiki Contributors_2014 in view of Florio_2018 in view of Bedrosian_2007 makes obvious all limitations of claim 14. The limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as those of claim 8 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 8. Additionally, Haldorsen_2005 makes obvious additional limitation wherein the processor is further configured to: (page 6 lines 19-25: “The surface electronics equipment may also contain a computer processor to process the received data…The computer software may allow the computer processor to process the received seismic data and produce a high-frequency geological subsurface image in accordance with the inventive methodology taught herein”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DONOHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-8972. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 at 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187