DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2. 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng (CN106291682A).
With respect to claim 1, Zheng discloses receiving a seismic trace interval of input seismic data representing a subterranean feature (MT [0014]: S1); determining a wavelet operator and an impedance and reflectivity model of the seismic trace interval (MT [0015]-[0016]: S2-3); and generating high resolution output seismic data corresponding to the input seismic data by performing a super resolution inversion on the seismic trace interval (MT [0022], line 8-9), performing the super resolution inversion including: imposing a first constraint on reflection coefficients of the impedance and reflectivity model (MT [0017]-[0018]: S4-5); and imposing a second constraint on an acoustic impedance model corresponding to the reflection coefficients ([MT [0019]: S6).
With respect to claim 2, Zheng discloses solving an optimization problem such that the acoustic impedance model equals a recursion of one plus a reflection coefficient of the impedance and reflectivity model over one minus the reflection coefficient (MT [0030] / CN [0026], pg 2, paragraph 17).
With respect to claim 7, Zheng discloses the first constraint promotes sparsity of reflection coefficients while omitting a spatial relation among seismic traces (MT [0037], Lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 10, Zheng discloses determining a wavelet operator and an impedance and reflectivity model of a seismic trace interval of input seismic data representing a subterranean feature (MT [0015]-[0016]: S2-3); and generating high resolution output seismic data corresponding to the input seismic data by performing a super resolution inversion on the seismic trace interval (MT [0022], line 8-9), the super resolution, inversion including: constraining a reflection coefficient of the impedance and reflectivity model (MT [0017]-[0018]: S4-5); constraining an acoustic impedance coefficient corresponding to the reflection coefficient ([MT [0019]: S6); and solving an optimization problem such that the acoustic impedance coefficient equals a recursion of one plus the reflection coefficient over one minus the reflection coefficient (MT [0030] / CN [0026], pg 2, paragraph 17).
With respect to claim 12, Zheng discloses the input seismic data is a time volume stacked image dataset (MT 0014]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng.
With respect to claim 3, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach solving the optimization problem such that a square of a difference between the seismic trace interval and a product of the wavelet operator and the reflection coefficient is less than an error misfit value. It does teach solving the optimization problem such that an absolute value of a difference between the seismic trace interval and a product of the wavelet operator and the reflection coefficient is less than an error misfit value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the optimization of Zheng since if the absolute value of an error is smaller than a suitable small value then the square of the error, being equivalent to the square of the absolute value of the error, would likewise be smaller than a misfit value.
With respect to claim 15, Zheng teaches determining a wavelet operator and an impedance and reflectivity model of a seismic trace interval of input seismic data representing a subterranean feature (MT [0015]-[0016]: S2-3); and generating high resolution output seismic data corresponding to the input seismic data by performing a super resolution inversion on the seismic trace interval (MT [0022], line 8-9), the super resolution, inversion including: constraining a reflection coefficient of the impedance and reflectivity model (MT [0017]-[0018]: S4-5); constraining an acoustic impedance coefficient corresponding to the reflection coefficient ([MT [0019]: S6). However, it does not teach solving an optimization problem such that a square of a difference between the seismic trace interval and a product of the wavelet operator and the reflection coefficient is less than an error misfit value. It does teach solving the optimization problem such that an absolute value of a difference between the seismic trace interval and a product of the wavelet operator and the reflection coefficient is less than an error misfit value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the optimization of Zheng since if the absolute value of an error is smaller than a suitable small value then the square of the error, being equivalent to the square of the absolute value of the error, would likewise be smaller than a misfit value.
Claims 4, 5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Downton (2011/0222370).
With respect to claim 4, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach presenting the high resolution output seismic data at a display of a computing device to visually represent an attribute section of the subterranean feature.
Downton teaches presenting output of the method on a display device ([0112], lines17-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zheng to display the results as taught by Downton since such a modification would have enabled the user to more quickly and easily visually characterize the results.
With respect to claim 5, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach performing the super resolution inversion further comprises imposing a third constraint or regularization on a data misfit.
Downton teaches imposing a third constraint or regularization on a data misfit of an inversion ([0015], lines 13-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zheng with the regularization of Downton since such a modification would have helped to attenuate the effects of random noise.
With respect to claim 19, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach presenting the high resolution output seismic data at a display of a computing device to visually represent a stratigraphic variation of stack sand of the subterranean feature.
Downton teaches presenting output of the method on a display device ([0112], lines17-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zheng to display the results as taught by Downton since such a modification would have enabled the user to more quickly and easily visually characterize the results.
Claims 4, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Sun (WO 2015/199757).
With respect to claim 4, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach presenting the high resolution output seismic data at a display of a computing device to visually represent an attribute section of the subterranean feature.
Sun teaches presenting output of the method on a display device ([0042], lines 14-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zheng to display the results as taught by Sun since such a modification would have enabled the user to more quickly and easily visually characterize the results.
With respect to claim 11, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach performing a redatum for the input seismic data to a reference horizon or reference surface.
Sun teaches performing a redatum for the input seismic data to a reference horizon or reference surface ([0040], lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of the Zheng with the redatuming of Sun since such a modification would have allowed for the use of simplifying assumptions to be used around complex salt bodies.
With respect to claim 19, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach presenting the high resolution output seismic data at a display of a computing device to visually represent a stratigraphic variation of stack sand of the subterranean feature.
Sun teaches presenting output of the method on a display device ([0042], lines 14-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zheng to display the results as taught by Sun since such a modification would have enabled the user to more quickly and easily visually characterize the results.
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Zhang (2021089897).
With respect to claim 16, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the high resolution output seismic data has an increased seismic bandwidth relative to the input seismic data.
Zhang teaches the high resolution output seismic data has an increased seismic bandwidth relative to the input seismic data ([0025], lines 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zheng with the increased seismic bandwidth of Zhang since Zhang teaches that the seismic bandwidth is directly proportional to resolution.
With respect to claim 17, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the high resolution output seismic data has an increased vertical resolution relative to the input seismic data.
Zhang teaches the high resolution output seismic data has an increased vertical resolution relative to the input seismic data ([0059]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zhang with the increased vertical resolution of Zhang since such a modification would have allowed for thinner layers to be detected.
With respect to claim 20, Zheng teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach determining a vertical section or a horizontal section location of a vertical well or a horizontal well for construction based on the high resolution output seismic data.
Zhang teaches determining a vertical section or a horizontal section location of a vertical well or a horizontal well for construction based on the high resolution output seismic data ([0041]; [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Zheng with the well sections of Zhang since such a modification would have allowed for better planning of wellbore operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-9, 13-14, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights