DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving as observed data that comprises seismic data recorded by one or more seismic receivers on or above a subsurface region of the Earth;
utilizing the observed data in a full waveform inversion (FWI) to estimate one or more properties of the subsurface region by minimizing a misfit between the observed data and modeled data;
the FWI comprising:
selecting a first objective function of the FWI from a set of objective functions;
selecting a second objective function of the FWI from the set of objective functions;
calculating a first misfit based upon the first objective function using modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculating a first search direction based upon the first misfit between the modeled data and the observed data;
calculating a second misfit based upon the second objective function using the modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculating a second search direction based upon the second misfit between the modeled data and the observed data; and
combining the first search direction with the second direction and computing an update to the modeled data based upon the first search direction and the second search direction combination.
Claim 11 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
11. A tangible and non-transitory machine readable medium, comprising instructions to cause a processor to:
receive as observed data that comprises seismic data recorded by one or more seismic receivers on or above a subsurface region of the Earth;
utilize the observed data in a full waveform inversion (FWI) to estimate one or more properties of the subsurface region by minimizing a misfit between the observed data and modeled data;
wherein, as part of implementing the FWI, the instructions cause the processor to:
select a first objective function of the FWI from a set of objective functions;
select a second objective function of the FWI from the set of objective functions;
calculate a first misfit based upon the first objective function using modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculate a first search direction based upon the first misfit between the modeled data and the observed data;
calculate a second misfit based upon the second objective function using the modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculate a second search direction based upon the second misfit between the modeled data and the observed data; and
combine the first search direction with the second direction and computing an update to the modeled data based upon the first search direction and the second search direction combination.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the tangible and non-transitory machine readable medium/wherein the method is a computer implemented method does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitation of receiving the recited observed data/seismic data equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (US 20200003920).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a computer-implemented method (see Abstract and paragraph 0008), comprising:
receiving as observed data that comprises seismic data recorded by one or more seismic receivers on or above a subsurface region of the Earth (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 0045: obtaining/receiving seismic data of a subsurface region, data generated using source and receivers);
utilizing the observed data in a full waveform inversion (FWI) to estimate one or more properties of the subsurface region by minimizing a misfit between the observed data and modeled data (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: using data in conjunction with an FWI algorithm that minimizes a joint objective function, i.e. misfit, between the seismic data and a model);
the FWI comprising selecting a first objective function of the FWI from a set of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: FWI objective function, objective function may be expressed by any misfit function known in the art, including without limitation, least squares (L2), trace-normalized cross-correlation, local cross-correlation, function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer);
selecting a second objective function of the FWI from the set of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function, function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer, meets limitations of a second objective function of the FWI as it is an objective function utilized in the FWI algorithm);
calculating a first misfit based upon the first objective function using modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculating a first search direction based upon the first misfit between the modeled data and the observed data (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: FWI objective function includes misfit between simulated and observed data, determined via least squares (L2), trace-normalized cross-correlation, or local cross-correlation, determines FWI gradient/search direction);
calculating a second misfit based upon the second objective function using the modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculating a second search direction based upon the second misfit between the modeled data and the observed data (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function includes calculating of a misfit between initial physical property model and the model for which the inversion is performed, determines tomography gradient/search direction); and
combining the first search direction with the second direction and computing an update to the modeled data based upon the first search direction and the second search direction combination (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0047, 0050, and 0053: combines the FWI gradient and the tomography gradient to make a joint gradient, i.e. joint search direction, which is used to update the model in an iterative process).
Regarding claim 2, Tang further discloses wherein selecting the first objective function comprises selecting the first objective function from a first class of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: FWI objective function, objective function may be expressed by any misfit function known in the art, including without limitation, least squares (L2), trace-normalized cross-correlation, local cross-correlation, one of the function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer).
Regarding claim 3, Tang further discloses wherein the selecting the second objective function comprises selecting the second objective function from a second class of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function, function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer, the class of objection functions is not defined in the claim language, the tomography objective function is not the same as the FWI objective function as it relates to different data).
Regarding claim 4, Tang further discloses wherein the selecting the second objective function comprises selecting the second objective function from the first class of objective functions while having at least one different variable from the first objective function (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function, contains different parameters from the FWI objective function as it compares different sets of data in a different way).
Regarding claim 11, Tang discloses a tangible and non-transitory machine readable medium, comprising instructions to cause a processor (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0008 and 0055-0056: non-transitory computer readable media with program, coupled to CPU/processor CPU performs the disclosed operation flow) to:
receive as observed data that comprises seismic data recorded by one or more seismic receivers on or above a subsurface region of the Earth (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 0045: obtaining/receiving seismic data of a subsurface region, data generated using source and receivers);
utilize the observed data in a full waveform inversion (FWI) to estimate one or more properties of the subsurface region by minimizing a misfit between the observed data and modeled data (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: using data in conjunction with an FWI algorithm that minimizes a joint objective function, i.e. misfit, between the seismic data and a model);
wherein, as part of implementing the FWI, the instructions cause the processor to (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0008 and 0055-0056: computer implemented method/process)
select a first objective function of the FWI from a set of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: FWI objective function, objective function may be expressed by any misfit function known in the art, including without limitation, least squares (L2), trace-normalized cross-correlation, local cross-correlation, function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer);
select a second objective function of the FWI from the set of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function, function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer, meets limitations of a second objective function of the FWI as it is an objective function utilized in the FWI algorithm);
calculate a first misfit based upon the first objective function using modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculate a first search direction based upon the first misfit between the modeled data and the observed data (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: FWI objective function includes misfit between simulated and observed data, determined via least squares (L2), trace-normalized cross-correlation, or local cross-correlation, determines FWI gradient/search direction);
calculate a second misfit based upon the second objective function using the modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculate a second search direction based upon the second misfit between the modeled data and the observed data (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function includes calculating of a misfit between initial physical property model and the model for which the inversion is performed, determines tomography gradient/search direction); and
combine the first search direction with the second direction and computing an update to the modeled data based upon the first search direction and the second search direction combination (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0047, 0050, and 0053: combines the FWI gradient and the tomography gradient to make a joint gradient, i.e. joint search direction, which is used to update the model in an iterative process).
Regarding claim 12, Tang further discloses instructions to cause the processor to select the first objective function from a first class of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, and 0047: FWI objective function, objective function may be expressed by any misfit function known in the art, including without limitation, least squares (L2), trace-normalized cross-correlation, local cross-correlation, one of the function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer).
Regarding claim 13, Tang further discloses instructions to cause the processor to select the second objective function from a second class of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function, function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer, the class of objection functions is not defined in the claim language, the tomography objective function is not the same as the FWI objective function as it relates to different data).
Regarding claim 14, Tang further discloses instructions to cause the processor to select the second objective function from the first class of objective functions while having at least one different variable from the first objective function (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0024, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function, contains different parameters from the FWI objective function as it compares different sets of data in a different way).
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 5-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20200003920) in view of Zhang (US 20170115411).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Tang discloses wherein the second misfit function is calculated concurrently with the first misfit function (see paragraph 0047).
Tang does not expressly disclose calculating a third misfit based upon a third objective function using the modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculating a third search direction based upon the third misfit between the modeled data and the observed data, wherein the third misfit is calculated concurrently with the first misfit and the second misfit.
Zhang discloses calculating a third misfit based upon a third objective function using the modeled data with respect to the observed data, calculating a third search direction based upon the third misfit between the modeled data and the observed data, wherein the third misfit is calculated concurrently with the first misfit and the second misfit (see Abstract and paragraphs 0021, 0050-0051, and 0057: discloses calculating a first, second, and third misfit, misfits are calculated in the same processing block of the disclosed algorithm, i.e. calculated concurrently, includes determine a time travel misfit, misfit based on least squares misfit, i.e. an objective function; and see Abstract and paragraph 0057: determines third misfit gradient, i.e. third search direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tang with the teachings of Zhang, i.e. determining a third misfit value for the joint inversion gradient process disclosed in Zhang, for the advantageous benefit of calculating an additional gradient that can be used to speed up the overall processing time of the inversion algorithm to a converging solution.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Tang does not expressly disclose combining the third search direction with the first search direction and the second direction to compute the update to the modeled data.
Zhang discloses combining the third search direction with the first search direction and the second direction to compute the update to the modeled data (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 0021 and 0057: joint inversion by combining first, second, and third gradients, i.e. search direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tang with the teachings of Zhang, i.e. determining a third misfit value for the joint inversion gradient process disclosed in Zhang, for the advantageous benefit of calculating an additional gradient that can be used to speed up the overall processing time of the inversion algorithm to a converging solution.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Tang, previously modified, further discloses wherein the selecting the second objective function comprises selecting the second objective function from a second class of objective functions (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0025, and 0047: reflection tomography objective function, function must have been selected to be computed by the disclosed method/computer, the class of objection functions is not defined in the claim language, the tomography objective function is not the same as the FWI objective function as it relates to different data).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Tang does not expressly disclose wherein the selecting the third objective function comprises selecting the third objective function from a third class of objective functions.
Zhang discloses wherein the selecting the third objective function comprises selecting the third objective function from a third class of objective functions (see Abstract and paragraphs 0021, 0050-0051, and 0057: discloses calculating a first, second, and third misfit, misfits are calculated in the same processing block of the disclosed algorithm, must have been selected, each of the three misfits are selected and calculated, class isn’t defined by the claim language, the class can be representative of the type of data the misfit is analyzing or the selected least squares algorithm can be considered a selected objective function from a broader class of objective function known in the art and highlighted in Tang).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tang with the teachings of Zhang, i.e. determining a third misfit value for the joint inversion gradient process disclosed in Zhang, for the advantageous benefit of calculating an additional gradient that can be used to speed up the overall processing time of the inversion algorithm to a converging solution.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Tang does not expressly disclose wherein the selecting the third objective function comprises selecting the third objective function from the first class of objective functions while having at least one different variable from the first objective function.
Zhang discloses wherein the selecting the third objective function comprises selecting the third objective function from the first class of objective functions while having at least one different variable from the first objective function (see Abstract and paragraphs 0021, 0050-0051, and 0057: discloses calculating a first, second, and third misfit, misfits are calculated in the same processing block of the disclosed algorithm, must have been selected, each of the three misfits are selected and calculated, class isn’t defined by the claim language, can be considered the same class as they are all least squares misfit functions, each function has at least one different variable as they each related to different types of data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tang with the teachings of Zhang, i.e. determining a third misfit value for the joint inversion gradient process disclosed in Zhang, for the advantageous benefit of calculating an additional gradient that can be used to speed up the overall processing time of the inversion algorithm to a converging solution.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Tang discloses wherein the first misfit and the second misfit are calculated concurrently through/via staggering calculation of one or more of the first misfit and the second misfit, i.e. wherein the processor concurrently calculates the first misfit and the second misfit (see paragraph 0047).
Tang does not expressly disclose wherein the third misfit is calculated concurrently with the first misfit and the second misfit.
Zhang discloses wherein the third misfit is calculated concurrently with the first misfit and the second misfit (see Abstract, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 0050-0052: misfits, i.e. first, second, and third are calculated in the same processing block of the disclosed method).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tang with the teachings of Zhang, i.e. determining a third misfit value for the joint inversion gradient process disclosed in Zhang, for the advantageous benefit of calculating an additional gradient that can be used to speed up the overall processing time of the inversion algorithm to a converging solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the method cannot be performed in the human mind. This argument is not persuasive, as the recited FWI algorithm and calculations of a misfit are known mathematical functions and fall under the category of mathematical concepts.
Applicant argues that the claims comprise a concrete physical operation in relation to the generation of seismic data recorded by one or more seismic receivers. However, the claims do not expressly require one to perform a seismic survey with a physical source and physical receivers, only the reception of such data, and the reception of such data is insignificant extra solution data activity.
Applicant argues that the claims incorporate a practical application by reciting specific improvement to seismic exploration technology.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A novel, or improved, abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Synopsys v Mentor Graphics held that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea and that the search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty (SYNOPSYS, INC. v. 2 MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (CAFC Decided October 17, 2016). The claims do not expressly recite any subsequent physical actions/practical applications in relation to drilling or physically extracting hydrocarbon deposits.
Applicant argues that the claims are patentable over the prior art Tang as Tang fails to teach or suggest combining the first and second search directions. The application points out paragraphs that indicate that the FWI gradient or the tomography gradient may be used.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument as Tang clearly discloses the concept of minimizing a joint objective function using a combination of the FWI objective function and the tomography objective function (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 0008, 0047, 0050, and 0053).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bozdag (Misfit functions for full waveform inversion based on instantaneous phase and envelope measurements) discloses various misfit functions relating to FWI of seismic data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights