Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/189,906 is filed on 03/24/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/12/2026. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20 are currently pending. Claims 2, 9, 12 and 19 are canceled per applicant’s request.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment is entered into further examination and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to the claims, the amendment is accepted and the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendment introduced new ambiguities. Please see the updated rejections below.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, arguments using the amended claims are considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 11 and 16, the limitation “wherein the fourth range is greater than the third range” in “predicting (or predict), using the trained ML network, an extended seismic dataset with a fourth range, at least in part, from the observed seismic dataset, wherein the fourth range is greater than the third range” is not clear whether the fourth range is a super set of the third range or not.
For the sake of examination the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the fourth range is greater than the third range and includes the third range” for clarity.
The limitation “truncating (or truncate) the processed seismic dataset by selecting only data within the third range” is ambiguous because “truncating by selecting only data within the third range” cannot be found in the specification and appears misleading.
Closest paragraphs that the examiner can relate to are (The extended seismic dataset (1304) is further processed to remove multiples with tapering and the R-EPSI algorithm, When compared with the non-extended CSG (412) of FIG. 4, the artifacts at the edges of the extended seismic dataset ( 1304) enclosed by the dashed ellipses (1308) are significantly reduced. In panel (1306) the edge effects induced by the R-EPSI algorithm are hardly visible within the dashed ellipses (1308) [00114],
Tapering may involve reducing smoothly (i.e., without strong discontinuities) to zero the amplitude of the events in the observed seismic dataset (502), by making use of tapering windows. Examples of tapering windows include, among others, linear windows, or cosine-based windows. After tapering, some regions of the observed seismic dataset (502) may have zero amplitudes, such as regions (506) in FIG 5. [0062]).
For the sake of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “tapering the processed seismic dataset for the extended area of the fourth range outside of the third range”.
The limitation “the processed seismic dataset” in “determining, using the seismic processor, a seismic image of the subsurface region of interest based, at least in part, on the processed seismic dataset” is ambiguous because it is not clear which “the processed seismic data it refers to, e.g. before truncating or after truncating”.
For the sake of examination, the processed seismic data is interpreted as the truncated (or tapered) seismic data.
As per claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 11 and 16 are rejected.
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, 3, 4, 6-7, 11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumstein (US 20210318458 A1), hereinafter ‘Baum’ in view of Maucec (US 20210389491 A1) and Al-Battal (Al-Battal, Abdullah F., and Wail A. Mousa. "The Design of 2-D Explicit Depth Extrapolators Using the Cauchy Norm." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 55, no. 5 (2017): 3029-3036), hereinafter “A-B” best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Baum discloses
A method, (A method [abs, 0002, 0042]) comprising:
obtaining a training seismic dataset comprising an input seismic dataset having a first range and a desired output seismic dataset having a second range, wherein the second range is greater than the first range; (seismic data, training dataset, input, output [0011-0012, 0042, 0074-0091, Fig 2A-5B, 12], extending bandwidth to a lower frequency range, dataset being split separately into a lower frequency range 'e.g. , low- frequency patches' and a higher frequency range 'e.g. , high - frequency patches', widening azimuth, narrow azimuth part, wide azimuth part [0074], the first portion and the second portion of the second dataset are used for training the neural network, batch size [0075])
and training, using the training seismic dataset, a machine-learning (ML) network to predict a predicted dataset, having the second range, from the input seismic dataset (training a neural network using ... geophysical dataset [0013], , training the neural network, after ... trained, the desired features in the first method are predicted, e.g. with bandwidth extension, lower frequencies in towed streamer data are predicted [0087-0091, Fig, 5A-5B], The trained network was then used to predict low frequencies from their high – frequency counterparts for streamer data [0093, Figs. 8A-8B, 9A-9B])
However, Baum is silent regarding iteratively training the ML network until a difference between the predicted dataset and the desired output seismic dataset satisfies a criterion.
Maucec discloses iteratively training the ML network until a difference between the predicted dataset and the desired output seismic dataset satisfies a criterion (obtaining predicted data for the geological region of interest using the first graph neural network; comparing the predicted data to acquired data for the geological region of interest to produce a comparison; and determining error data using the comparison and an error function [claim 4], the predicted data is generated by the first graph neural network during a machine-learning epoch; and updating, in response to the first difference failing to satisfy the predetermined criterion, the first graph neural network to produce a second graph neural network, and wherein the second graph neural network is updated iteratively using a plurality of machine-learning epochs and the training data to produce the updated graph neural network [claim 6]).
Maucec is in the same seismic data processing art which uses machine learning techniques like Baum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Baum in view of Maucec to train, using the training seismic dataset, a machine-learning (ML) network to iteratively predict a predicted dataset, having the second range, from the input seismic dataset until a difference between the predicted dataset and the desired output seismic dataset satisfies a criterion with a rationale
for compensating deficiencies in a geophysical dataset that are used in an extrapolation technique (See Baum – compensating deficiencies [abs, 0002], compensate for ghost [0006], extrapolate, compensate for desired feature [0070]).
Baum further discloses
obtaining an observed seismic dataset pertaining to a subsurface region of interest with a third range;
(reservoir surveillance data, observed/measured geophysical data [0051])
and predicting, using a seismic processor and the trained ML network, an extended seismic dataset with a fourth range, at least in part, from the observed seismic dataset, wherein the fourth range is greater than the third range, (Machine learning, predictions [0042], processor [0078, 0096, 0099], the desired features ... are predicted using the trained neural network, with bandwidth extension [0090, Fig. 5A-5B], trained network was then used to predict low frequencies from their high frequency counterparts [0093, 0095, Fig. 8A-8B, 9A-9B])
processing, using the seismic processor, the extended seismic dataset to generate a processed seismic dataset, having the fourth range, (extending, datasets [0008, 0015, Fig. 1A, 0066, 0068, 0071, 0074-0075, 0088, Fig. 5B, 0090])
However, the combined prior art is silent regarding truncating the processed seismic dataset by selecting only data within the third range.
A-B discloses smoothing or tapering of extrapolated seismic data for image processing (seismic data, after extrapolation, the seismic image [pg. 3030 left col par. 1], RLS designed filters, Kaiser tapered, smooth phase shift, extrapolators [pg. 3032 right col par. 1 from the bottom, Fig. 2]).
A-B is in the same geo-science art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of A-B to taper the processed seismic dataset for the extended area of the fourth range outside of the third range with a rationale for compensating deficiencies in a geophysical dataset that are used in an extrapolation technique.
Baum further discloses
determining, using the seismic processor, a seismic image of the subsurface region of interest based, at least in part, on the processed seismic dataset; (multi-processor computer system, multi-processor server [0096, 0099], suitable processor [0099] images of subsurface [abs, 0005, 0007, 0011 ], neural network, subsurface geology, extrapolate ... transferring wide azimuth information from a collocated sparse ... survey [0070], image patches outside of ... range, within the ... range[007 4])
and determining, using a seismic interpretation workstation, a drilling target in the subsurface region of interest based, at least in part, on the seismic image. (computer workstations [0099], high performance computer [0100], above described techniques and/or systems implementing such techniques ... include hydrocarbon management, seismic images, feature ... maps, drilling a well, well to be drilled, a location determined, further prospecting for and/or producing hydrocarbons using the well [0101 ], framework .... Interpretation of ... seismic images [0041 ], identifying potential hydrocarbon - bearing formations, characterizing, identifying well locations ... reviewing, hydrocarbon management [0051]).
As per claim 11, Baum discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to perform steps of: (non - transitory computer readable medium … software instructions … executed by a processor to perform the method [0126])
Baum in view of Maucec and A-B discloses the remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
As per claim 16, Baum discloses
A system, (systems [0032, 0085]) comprising:
a seismic acquisition system configured to record an observed seismic dataset pertaining to a subsurface region of interest; (streamer acquisition, survey [abs, 0005], seismic survey … source and receivers [0004], acquisition [0008-0009, 0012]), and
a seismic processor, (multi-processor computer system, multi-processor server [0096, 0099], suitable processor [0099]) configured to
Baum in view of Maucec and A-B discloses the remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
As per claims 3, 13 and 17, Baum. Maucec and A-B discloses claims 1, 11 and 16, set forth above.
Baum further discloses the training seismic dataset comprises a synthetic seismic dataset. (training neural networks using synthetic datasets [0055]).
As per claims 4 and 14, Baum. Maucec and A-B discloses claims 3 and 13 set forth above.
Baum further discloses
the synthetic seismic dataset comprises: a plurality of synthetic events of seismic reflectivity having a geometrical trajectory in space-time; (various type of preprocessing, side note: preprocessed dataset is equivalent to the synthetic dataset, … seismic trace, reflection event, …migration … seismic events are geometrically re-located in either space or time to the location the event occurred in the subsurface [0079, Fig. 6A-11B], side note: geometrical trajectory means the seismic curve shape in the spatial time domain according to the specification – see [0047 Fig 2])
and at least one seismic wavelet. (preprocessing comprises … wavelet shaping, e.g. changing wavelet phase and amplitude [0081])
As per claims 6, 15 and 18, Baum. Maucec and A-B discloses claims 1, 11 and 16 set forth above.
Baum discloses the ML network is a convolutional neural network. (convolution neural networks ‘CNNs’ [0012, 0046], neural network … for supervised learning, parameters of the neural network ‘e.g., coefficients of the convolution filters’ [0089, Fig, 5B 570], convolution network [0130]).
As per claims 7, Baum. Maucec and A-B discloses claim 1 set forth above.
Baum further discloses training the ML network comprises supervised learning. (neural network … supervised learning [0060, 0067, 0069, 0089, Fig. 5B 560]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum, Maucec and A-B in view of Li (CN 108645994 B), hereinafter ‘Li’.
As per claim 5, Baum. Maucec and A-B discloses claim 4 set forth above.
Baum is silent regarding the synthetic seismic dataset further comprises random perturbations to at least one of the at least one seismic wavelet and the geometrical trajectory.
Li discloses multi point random perturbation including wavelet seismic record and reflection coefficient (random simulation algorithm … multi-point geological statistic,
perturbation according to the random sampling method, pseudo-reservoir physical parameter model, wavelet synthetic seismic record, R is the reflection coefficient [claim 15], side note: reflection coefficient will impact the geometrical data curve shape, i.e. trajectory)
Li is in the same geological and petroleum exploration technology field handling seismic data processing and interpretation as Baum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Li to apply random perturbations to at least one of the at least one seismic wavelet and the geometrical trajectory for the generation of the synthetic seismic data for compensating deficiencies in a geophysical dataset that are used in an extrapolation technique (See Baum – compensating deficiencies [abs, 0002], compensate for ghost [0006], extrapolate, compensate for desired feature [0070]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum. Maucec and A-B in view of Lupin (US 20140156194 A1).
As per claim 8, Baum. Maucec and A-B discloses claim 1 set forth above.
Baum discloses first, second, third and fourth ranges in claim 1.
Baum also discloses widening seismic dataset based on the spatial rage (widening azimuth, narrow azimuth part, wide azimuth part [0074])
However, Baum fails to explicitly recited the special range.
Lupin discloses spatial range (extrapolating data items … with a corresponding spatial coordinate across the geological surface [abs, 0004]) and Lupin is in the same geophysical surveying, drilling, logging … production field processing seismic dataset like Baum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Lupin to use spatial range for the first, second, third and fourth range in order to compensate deficiencies in a geophysical dataset which are used in an extrapolation technique.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum. Maucec and A-B in view of Sun (US 20240319396 A1).
As per claims 10 and 20, Baum. Maucec and A-B discloses claims 1 and 16 set forth above.
Baum is silent regarding planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target and drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory.
Sun discloses planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target and drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory. (drilling … wellbores [0029, Fig. 1], wellbore planning system, wellbore drilling plan … wellbore trajectories to reach the drilling targets, drilling system [0036, claims 3-4, 14, Fig. 1 118 120 122], drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned well trajectory [0106]) and Sun is in the same oil and gas industry field performing seismic survey and seismic data processing like Baum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Sun to plan, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target and drill, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory by compensating deficiencies in a geophysical dataset by using extrapolation technique and using automated and reliable interpretations (see Sun – automated, quickly, reliable and repeatably performing a wholistic interpretation [0004]).
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record below are considered being pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boese (US 20090034817 A1) discloses techniques of removing truncation artifacts (aim of reducing or removing the truncation artifacts has been predominantly approached in literature by supplementing the truncated data in order to obtain the projection profile as would be produced if the measurement field area had encompassed the entire object. The supplementing is done by extrapolation of the truncated data rows [0015], truncation artifacts can be suppressed which occur when the object to be examined extends into areas outside the so-called scan field-of-view [0019], The object is achieved in accordance with the invention by the signal of a projection data row being smoothed with a polynomial filter to reduce the noise component of the signal and by the truncated proportion of the projection data row being computed from the smoothed signal of the projection data row by means of an extrapolation method, with the extrapolation widths being derived from a number of rows [0025]).
Xia (US 20220066059 A1) also discloses a plurality of synthetic events of seismic reflectivity having a geometrical trajectory in space-time (visual inspection of these seismic time sections can Intuitively suggest shapes and locations of subsurface reflecting formations [0002], relocates all of the recorded samples and builds an image with the events of the image displayed at their proper positions in time (or depth) and space. Imaging [0011], generate a high-resolution time-migrated image gathers for reservoir characterization, and interpretation, seismic data … graphic form [0076, Fig. 7], seismic data, common shot gathers with horizonal axis of offset and vertical axis of time, side note: representing space-time domain data, hyperbolic moveout analysis [0077, Fig. 7]).
Ramsay (US 20200341162 A1) also discloses spatial extents (extrapolate seismic data or measurements of formation properties in space and time [0049]).
Dukalski (US 20240255665 A1) also discloses planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target and drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory (using a well planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory may be planned to reach the drilling target and a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory may be drilled, using a drilling system [0090, claims 6 and 17]).
Groover (US 20220049594 A1) also discloses planning, using a wellbore planning system, a planned wellbore trajectory to intersect the drilling target and drilling, using a drilling system, a wellbore guided by the planned wellbore trajectory (drilling plan, a target location, a drilling path [0001], drilling operation, drilling tools, well plan [0002]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights