DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in claims, e.g. “the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to develop a drilling plan and wellbore parameters for the subsurface region; the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to identify a plurality of well paths in the subsurface region; determine a casing plan and mud weight long each of the well paths; and select an optimal well path from among the plurality of well paths, wherein the optimal well path is selected based on one or more of cost, safety and stability of the well path.”, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I): "Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language (e.g. the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to develop a drilling plan and wellbore parameters for the subsurface region; the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to identify a plurality of well paths in the subsurface region; determine a casing plan and mud weight long each of the well paths; and select an optimal well path from among the plurality of well paths, wherein the optimal well path is selected based on one or more of cost, safety and stability of the well path.) specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For method, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply develop a drilling plan and wellbore parameters for the subsurface region in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV."
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regrading claims 8 and 10, it is not clear what after random number “ ….” Refers too (see, steps i(a)(d)).
Regrading claims 8, after step III, text is missing and make the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 and 20 recites the limitation, see under line portion of the claims
PNG
media_image1.png
837
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 10 and 22 recites the limitation, see under line portion of the claims
PNG
media_image2.png
804
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-24 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-12 fall within category of process; each of claims 13-24 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1-9 and 11-12
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of full-wavefield inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a velocity model for a subsurface region.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A computer-implemented method for full-wavefield inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a velocity model for a subsurface region, comprising:
a) receiving seismic data for the subsurface region;
b) pre-processing the received seismic data;
c) generating a simple starting model;
d) generating synthetic seismic data using full-waveform inversion (FWI) based on the starting model;
e) computing an objective function by comparing the synthetic seismic data with pre-processed observed data;
f) computing a gradient of the objective function with respect to subsurface model parameters;
g) if one or more defined stopping parameters are not met, then updating the starting model with the gradient, a random perturbation term, and a regularization term and going back to step d); or h) if the one or more defined stopping parameters are met, then outputting a final velocity model for the subsurface region.
The italicized limitations above represent mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the steps d-g are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) . Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “a) receiving seismic data for the subsurface region; b) pre-processing the received seismic data;” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea..
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-12
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-12 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-9 and 11-12 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-9: a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) . Therefore, the limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations of Claims 11-12: mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by mental judgement) . Therefore, the limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regarding Claim 10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea of full-wavefield inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a velocity model for a subsurface region.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following limitations:
PNG
media_image3.png
514
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
840
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
468
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
The limitations above represent mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 10 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “a) receiving seismic data for the subsurface region; b) pre-processing the received seismic data;” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, 2nd additional element is “Initiating a seismic source at multiple locations ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic seismic data collection system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 10 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea..
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Regarding Claims 20-21 and 24
Claims 13-24 contains language similar to claims 1-13 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 13-24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Furthermore, Claims 13-24, recites additional element is “ a system, aa memory in communication with a processor, wherein computer-executable instructions stored on the memory when executed by the processor cause the processor to: ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s)1-2, 4-6, 13-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20180356548) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190154857).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13. Liu teaches a computer-implemented method for full-wavefield inversion of measured geophysical data to determine a velocity model for a subsurface region, comprising(abstract; figs. 1 and 3):
a) receiving seismic data for the subsurface region(observation data: fig.3 );
b) pre-processing the received seismic data(seismic wave certainly contains low frequency parts and high frequency parts, the first intermediary data and the second intermediary data also contains low frequency parts and high frequency parts. After removing the high frequency parts of the first intermediary data and the second intermediary data: [0056]);
c) generating a simple starting model(initial model: fig. 3);
d) generating synthetic seismic data based on the starting model(use the initial velocity model to forward propagate and calculate the seismic synthesis record: [0077]);
e) computing an objective function by comparing the synthetic seismic data with pre-processed observed data(objective function: [0077]; After removing the high frequency parts of the first intermediary data and the second intermediary data, the low frequency parts of them are used to build the objective function: [0017]-[0018], [0056]; [0059]-[0063]);
f) computing a gradient of the objective function with respect to subsurface model parameters(calculate derivative of the objective function with respect to velocity in order to obtain velocity gradient equation (3) :[0065]-[0066]);
g) if one or more defined stopping parameters are not met(Y: fig. 3; if the value of the objective function drops, that is, the value of the objective function is less than the value of last iteration, then calculate the iteration step length of the velocity gradient, i.e., the modification amount of the velocity: [0077]), then updating the starting model with the gradient(then update the initial velocity model based on iteration step length and the velocity gradient: [0077]), a random perturbation term(search step length: fig. 3; Search the iterative step length a of the gradient δ(m) by parabolic method: [0072], [0077]), and a regularization term (the updated initial velocity model is used to forward propagate and calculate new forward propagate data: [0077]) and going back to step d)( establish objective function based on the observation data and the new forward propagate data: [0077]); or
h) if the one or more defined stopping parameters are met([0073]), then outputting a final velocity model for the subsurface region(no: fig. 3; If the value of the objective function is no less than the value of last iteration, then the iteration of the FWI method of the present application stops. The inversion velocity model obtained at the end of the iteration is the initial velocity model of the conventional FWI, which is the underground velocity model of high accuracy after a series of iterations: [0077]).
Liu does not explicitly teach d) generating synthetic seismic data using full-waveform inversion (FWI) based on the starting model.
However Wang teaches d) generating synthetic seismic data using full-waveform inversion (FWI) based on the starting model (FWI using Born modeling to generate synthetic data from reflectivity even with a smoothly varying initial velocity model:[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Liu, d) generating synthetic seismic data using full-waveform inversion (FWI) based on the starting model, as taught by Wang, so as to generate high-quality velocity models.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14. Liu further teaches the starting model comprises a homogenous model or randomly generated model(initial velocity model: [0041]-[0042]; [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16. Liu further teaches the stopping parameters are based on a small mismatch value between the synthetic seismic data or a number of times that steps d)-g) are iteratively performed([0077]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17. Liu does not explicitly teach generating synthetic seismic data using FWI based on the starting model comprises estimating synthetic seismic data using a seismic wave simulator by solving two-way wave equations for multiple source locations.
However, Wang teaches generating synthetic seismic data using FWI based on the starting model ([0045])comprises estimating synthetic seismic data using a seismic wave simulator by solving two-way wave equations for multiple source locations(325: fig. 3; [0009], [0040], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Liu, generating synthetic seismic data using FWI based on the starting model comprises estimating synthetic seismic data using a seismic wave simulator by solving two-way wave equations for multiple source locations, as taught by Wang, so as to generate high-quality velocity models.
Regarding Claims 6 and 18. Liu further teaches
PNG
media_image6.png
94
662
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(See [0063], equation 2]).
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20180356548) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190154857), further in view of Cooper et al. (2021/0063590).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15. The modified Liu silent about the starting model comprises a model derived based on prior well-log information or a tomographic model.
However, Cooper teaches the starting model comprises a model derived based on prior well-log information or a tomographic model([0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Liu, the starting model comprises a model derived based on prior well-log information or a tomographic model, as taught by Cooper, so as to explore image of the underground structure.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19. Liu further teaches the gradient of the objective function with respect to subsurface model parameters comprises computing the gradient of the objective function with respect to model parameters at each inversion grid (model parameter i) by solving two way wave equations for multiple source locations with multiple times using an adjoint-state method(i.e. Frechét derivative)([0060], [0066]-[0067], [0072]-[0073], [0079]).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20180356548) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190154857), further in view of Liu et al. (US 20210311215) (hereinafter Liu’215).
Regarding Claims 11 and 23. The modified Liu silent about the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to develop a drilling plan and wellbore parameters for the subsurface region.
However, Liu’215 teaches the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to develop a drilling plan and wellbore parameters for the subsurface region([0015], [0030], [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Liu, the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to develop a drilling plan and wellbore parameters for the subsurface region, as taught by Liu’215, so as to improve the efficiency of the workflow of drilling processes that rely on velocity models..
Regarding Claims 12 and 24. The modified Liu silent about the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to identify a plurality of well paths in the subsurface region; determine a casing plan and mud weight long each of the well paths; and select an optimal well path from among the plurality of well paths, wherein the optimal well path is selected based on one or more of cost, safety and stability of the well path.
However, Liu’215 teaches the final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to identify a plurality of well paths in the subsurface region ([0015], [0030], [0058]); determine a casing plan and mud weight long each of the well paths([0088]); and select an optimal well path from among the plurality of well paths, wherein the optimal well path is selected based on one or more of cost, safety and stability of the well path([0015], [0030], [0058], [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Liu, he final velocity model for the subsurface region is used to identify a plurality of well paths in the subsurface region; determine a casing plan and mud weight long each of the well paths; and select an optimal well path from among the plurality of well paths, wherein the optimal well path is selected based on one or more of cost, safety and stability of the well path, as taught by Liu’215, so as to improve the efficiency of the workflow of drilling processes that rely on velocity models..
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims 8-10 and 20-22(specifically 8, 10, 20 and 22), however there are 101 and 112 rejection over the claims.
Krohn et al. (US 2016/0047924) also teaches most of the claim limitations, specifically claims 1 and 13 as figure 4, item 401-409 and Whitemore et al. (US 20210103065) also teaches the most of the claim limitations, specifically claims 1 and 13 as figure 6, item 601-609
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Walter et al. (US 20140222345) disclose seismic velocity models. At least some of the illustrative embodiments are methods including: refining a seismic velocity model by correlating a predicted log to a measured log; creating a pseudo-surface pick location in a modeled subsurface horizon based on the correlating; modifying at least a portion of a seismic velocity model based on the pseudo-surface pick location; recalculating the modeled subsurface horizon based on the seismic velocity model, thereby creating a modified surface; and plotting the modified surface on a display device of a computer system.
b) Sun et al. (US 20220317325) disclose a seismic data set and a seismic wave propagation velocity model and approximating the seismic wave propagation velocity model as a plurality of layers each bounded by a first and second bounding depth.
c) Smith et al. (US 20220187493) disclose, generating synthetic logs and calibrating existing velocity models can be performed using reduced-cost substitutes in the form of drilling parameters, drilling parameters and logging while drilling logs, or drilling parameters and logging while drilling logs and near-bit vibrations. Moreover, the implementations disclosed herein increase the robustness of the mechanical property estimates during inefficient or suboptimal drilling when drilling measurements are dominated by noise from drilling dysfunctions.
d)Nojadeh et al. ( US 20210372258) disclose show synthetically modeled images of ground truth subsurface velocity, and subsurface images provided by processing surface and SWD data. Specifically, FIG. 4A shows a synthetic velocity model representative of the well-known McMurray Formation, located in Alberta. FIG. 4B shows a surface seismic image over the model of FIG. 4A (i.e., an image provided by processing surface seismic data for the velocity model of FIG. 4A). FIG. 5A shows the velocity model of FIG. 4A, overlaid with a schematic representation of a drilling system for seismic-while-drilling acquisition according to systems and methods disclosed herein. FIG. 5B further shows a subsurface image provided by processing SWD data for the velocity model of FIG. 4A.
e) Wang et al. ( US 20170131418) disclose ; calculating with a computing device an updated velocity model mi+1 based on a previous velocity model mi and a step length; and producing the image of the subsurface based on the recorded wave fields D and the updated velocity model mi+1. The predicted wave fields Pmi are predicted by the previous velocity model mi.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857