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 .
Applicant cancelled claims 1-10 and added claims 11-20.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the alignment" inline 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 11, a method) or manufacture (claim 19, a computer program) or machine (claim 20, a system), which are statutory categories.
4.1 However, evaluating claim 11, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship. The limitations include:
preparing an initial model with initial functions of velocity and density taken as constants or measured by obtaining seismic trace(s) or measured by obtaining borehole logs; generating synthetic trace(s) from the initial functions of velocity and density function(s) with added artificial kinematic constraints and randomly updating the initial functions of velocity and density in random start and length time or depth window(s); creating updated synthetic traces, using randomly updated the velocity and density functions, wherein for each iteration, artificial wave(s) traveling from a source point to a reflection point and back to any receiver are simulated as a constraint; performing a search of a misfit object function of any norm between original or real trace or traces and the synthetic trace(s) generated in the following iteration; using probabilistic techniques for approximating the global optimum; and minimizing the cost function associated with the seismic trace(s) mismatch.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 12-18 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rational as in claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
The descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They
are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions.
In order to overcome this rejection, the following language is suggested:
“19. (Currently amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program product comprising …”
Examiner’s Notes
Claim 11 distinguishes over the prior art of record because the closest prior of
record Zhao et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0041589) discloses seismic data processing may include computing the travel time shift between two seismic signals or the depth shift between two seismic images. In Full Waveform Inversion (FWI), the travel time difference between an observed trace and a simulated trace may be computed such that the two traces match after the travel time shift is applied to the observed trace. The travel time shift may be computed based on a constrained optimization that maximizes the windowed cross-correlation between the two seismic traces by constraining the time derivative of the travel time shift to be less than a constant while maximizing the windowed cross-correlation. Further, the travel time shift may be computed during the model line search in FWI by computing a plurality of travel time shifts where a first travel time shift is dependent on the observed trace and a second travel time shift is independent of the observed trace. However, Zhao et al. fails to anticipate or renders obvious a computer implemented method for extracting or estimating velocity and density from seismic traces, the method including the steps of: generating synthetic trace(s) from the initial functions of velocity and density function(s) with added artificial kinematic constraints and randomly updating the initial functions of velocity and density in random start and length time or depth window(s); creating updated synthetic traces, using randomly updated the velocity and density functions, wherein for each iteration, artificial wave(s) traveling from a source point to a reflection point and back to any receiver are simulated as a constraint; and using probabilistic techniques for approximating the global optimum, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Claim 19 distinguishes over the prior art of record because the closest prior of
record Zhao et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0041589) discloses seismic data processing may include computing the travel time shift between two seismic signals or the depth shift between two seismic images. In Full Waveform Inversion (FWI), the travel time difference between an observed trace and a simulated trace may be computed such that the two traces match after the travel time shift is applied to the observed trace. The travel time shift may be computed based on a constrained optimization that maximizes the windowed cross-correlation between the two seismic traces by constraining the time derivative of the travel time shift to be less than a constant while maximizing the windowed cross-correlation. Further, the travel time shift may be computed during the model line search in FWI by computing a plurality of travel time shifts where a first travel time shift is dependent on the observed trace and a second travel time shift is independent of the observed trace. However, Zhao et al. fails to anticipate or renders obvious a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the computer implemented method of: generating synthetic trace(s) from the initial functions of velocity and density function(s) with added artificial kinematic constraints and randomly updating the initial functions of velocity and density in random start and length time or depth window(s); creating updated synthetic traces, using randomly updated the velocity and density functions, wherein for each iteration, artificial wave(s) traveling from a source point to a reflection point and back to any receiver are simulated as a constraint; and using probabilistic techniques for approximating the global optimum, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Claim 20 distinguishes over the prior art of record because the closest prior of
record Zhao et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0041589) discloses seismic data processing may include computing the travel time shift between two seismic signals or the depth shift between two seismic images. In Full Waveform Inversion (FWI), the travel time difference between an observed trace and a simulated trace may be computed such that the two traces match after the travel time shift is applied to the observed trace. The travel time shift may be computed based on a constrained optimization that maximizes the windowed cross-correlation between the two seismic traces by constraining the time derivative of the travel time shift to be less than a constant while maximizing the windowed cross-correlation. Further, the travel time shift may be computed during the model line search in FWI by computing a plurality of travel time shifts where a first travel time shift is dependent on the observed trace and a second travel time shift is independent of the observed trace. However, Zhao et al. fails to anticipate or renders obvious a data processing system comprising a processor configured to perform the steps of the computer implemented method of: generating synthetic trace(s) from the initial functions of velocity and density function(s) with added artificial kinematic constraints and randomly updating the initial functions of velocity and density in random start and length time or depth window(s); creating updated synthetic traces, using randomly updated the velocity and density functions, wherein for each iteration, artificial wave(s) traveling from a source point to a reflection point and back to any receiver are simulated as a constraint; and using probabilistic techniques for approximating the global optimum, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Zhang et al. [‘124] discloses a method for iteratively picking the seismic first breaks and conducting imaging of the near-surface velocity structures in an iterative fashion is provided that the first-break picks of the input seismic data are applied to image the near-surface velocity structures and the calculated travel times associated with the updated velocity structures are applied to help refine the first-break picks in the first break picking process until first-break picks satisfy a number of quality control criteria, statics solutions are optimized, and the near surface imaging reaches an acceptable data misfit. This invention produces a velocity model that can be used for near surface statics corrections or for the prestack depth migration.
Burnettet al. [‘613] discloses a method, including: determining, with a computer, point spread functions for a plurality of parameter locations by performing at least a portion of a first iteration of an iterative full wavefield inversion process; determining at least one property for each of the point spread functions; and evaluating a candidate survey design based on the at least one property for each of the point spread functions.
Contact information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857