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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “attenuating the internal multiplies”, for consistency and clarity –attenuating the internal multiples--. 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is a method which recite(s) calculating a second reflectivity r2 associated with a second formation in the subsurface, based on wavefield extrapolation of the seismic data d and a reflection in the first reflectivity r1, wherein the second formation is different from the first formation; calculating the internal multiples using (1) wavefield extrapolation of the seismic data d, (2) the reflection in the first reflectivity r1, and (3) a reflection in the second reflectivity r2; attenuating the internal multiplies from the seismic data d by subtraction.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of calculating a second reflectivity, calculating the internal multiples and attenuating the internal multiples encompasses the use of mathematical formulas, relationships, calculations or equations. For example, these limitation are accomplished using least-square optimizing ([0049]), an inverse Fourier transform ([0056]) and/or any method of attenuation such as subtraction ([0009]-[0010]) or any known method ([0026]). Thus, these claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)I. The claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim limitations of receiving seismic data d associated with the subsurface, wherein the seismic data d includes primaries and internal multiples; receiving a first reflectivity r1 associated with a first formation in the subsurface; and generating an image of the subsurface indicative of geophysical features associated with oil or gas resources. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality, without adding any meaningful limitations to how the receiving occurs or how the image is generated, such that it amounts to no more than generic data gathering and outputting necessary for the abstract idea. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional claim elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the prior art teaches that the additional elements are known in the art, see e.g. Teague et al. ([0006]-[0028]). Thus, the prior art establishes that these data gathering and outputting steps are well-understood, routine and convention activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, they cannot provide inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 depends from claim 1 and recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. The additional claim elements serve to add additional steps to the abstract idea (claims 2 and 4) or add additional descriptions to the abstract idea itself (claims 3 and 5-7). That is, all of the additional claim elements are directed to the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional claim elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is an article of manufacture or device which recite(s) calculate a second reflectivity r2 associated with a second formation in the subsurface, based on wavefield extrapolation of the seismic data d and a reflection in the first reflectivity r1, wherein the second formation is different from the first formation; calculate the internal multiples using (1) wavefield extrapolation of the seismic data d, (2) the reflection in the first reflectivity r1, and (3) a reflection in the second reflectivity r2; attenuate the internal multiplies from the seismic data d by subtraction.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of calculate a second reflectivity, calculate the internal multiples and attenuate the internal multiples encompasses the use of mathematical formulas, relationships, calculations or equations. For example, these limitation are accomplished using least-square optimizing ([0049]), an inverse Fourier transform ([0056]) and/or any method of attenuation such as subtraction ([0009]-[0010]) or any known method ([0026]). Thus, these claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)I. The claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim limitations of the computing system comprising: an interface configured to receive seismic data d associated with the subsurface, wherein the seismic data d includes primaries, and internal multiples; and a processor connected to the interface and configured to, receive a first reflectivity r1 associated with a first formation in the subsurface. The limitations of a computing system, an interface and a processor are recited at a high level of generality, without adding meaningful limitations to the claim, such that it amounts to being a computer used to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and used as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The limitations of receive seismic data and receive a first reflectivity are recited at a high level of generality, without adding any meaningful limitations to how the receiving occurs or how the image is generated, such that it amounts to no more than generic data gathering and outputting necessary for the abstract idea. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the limitations of a computing system, an interface and a processor are generic computer components. As discussed above, the additional claim elements amounts of receive and generate to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the prior art teaches that the additional elements are known in the art, see e.g. Teague et al. ([0006]-[0028]). Thus, the prior art establishes that these data gathering and outputting steps are well-understood, routine and convention activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, they cannot provide inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 depends from claim 8 and recites the same abstract idea as claim 8. The additional claim elements serve to add additional steps to the abstract idea (claims 9 and 11) or add additional descriptions to the abstract idea itself (claims 10 and 12-14). That is, all of the additional claim elements are directed to the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional claim elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is a method which recite(s) applying a first mask to the image to generate a first reflectivity r1, which is associated with a first formation in the subsurface; applying a second mask to the image to generate a second reflectivity r2, which is associated with a second formation in the subsurface; estimating the internal multiples using (1) wavefield extrapolation of the seismic data d, (2) a reflection in the first reflectivity r1, and (3) a reflection in the second reflectivity r2; attenuating the internal multiplies from the seismic data d by subtraction, to obtain demultiple data dd.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of applying a first mask, applying a second mask, estimating the internal multiples encompasses and attenuating the internal multiplies the use of mathematical formulas, relationships, calculations or equations. For example, these limitation are accomplished using least-square optimizing ([0062]), wave equation extrapolation ([0057]; [0061]), an inverse Fourier transform ([0056]) and/or any method of attenuation such as subtraction ([0009]-[0010]) or any known method ([0026]). Thus, these claim limitations fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)I. The claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional claim limitations of receiving seismic data d associated with the subsurface, wherein the seismic data d includes primaries, surface related multiples, and internal multiples; generating an image of the subsurface based on the surface related multiples; applying a first mask to the image to generate a first reflectivity r1, which is associated with a first formation in the subsurface; and generating an improved image of the subsurface, which is indicative of geophysical features associated with oil or gas resources, based on the demultiple data dd. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality, without adding any meaningful limitations to how the receiving occurs or how the image is generated, such that it amounts to no more than generic data gathering and outputting necessary for the abstract idea. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional claim elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the prior art teaches that the additional elements are known in the art, see e.g. Teague et al. ([0006]-[0028]). Thus, the prior art establishes that these data gathering and outputting steps are well-understood, routine and convention activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, they cannot provide inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-17 depends from claim 15 and recites the same abstract idea as claim 15. The additional claim elements serve to add additional steps to the abstract idea (claim 17) or add additional descriptions to the abstract idea itself (claim 16). That is, all of the additional claim elements are directed to the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional claim elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious calculating a second reflectivity r2 associated with a second formation in the subsurface, based on wavefield extrapolation of the seismic data d and a reflection in the first reflectivity r1, wherein the second formation is different from the first formation; calculating the internal multiples using (1) wavefield extrapolation of the seismic data d, (2) the reflection in the first reflectivity r1, and (3) a reflection in the second reflectivity r2; attenuating the internal multiplies from the seismic data d by subtraction, in combination with all other limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. in Non-Patent Literature “Angle-Domain Common-Image Gathers for Imaging of Multiples Using Poynting Vectors” teaches “multiples can be used for imaging and produce additional angular illumination. These additional illumination angles can improve imaging resolution. There are several methods to calculate the angle gathers from imaging of primaries, among which the directional vector methods are matured and have been implemented in practice” (Abstract).
Retailleau in Foreign Patent WO 2016063125 teaches “The predictive deconvolution operators are used to generate an image of the near subsurface because they embed the shallow subsurface reflectivity which generated surface or internal multiple reverberations, causing ringing in the seismic record. The image can then be outputted, for example, displayed to an operator, and saved in one of more databases. In one embodiment, one of more signal processing techniques are applied to the deconvolution operators in order to generate the image of the near subsurface. The deconvolution operators, after signal processing, are then looked at or evaluated to generate the desired image of the near subsurface.” ([0028]-[0029]) and “An image is then generated of the near subsurface using the predictive deconvolution operators 512. The resulting image of the near subsurface is then output, i.e., displayed to an operator, and stored for future use and reference 516. Any suitable method for displaying and storing images and image data can be used” ([0045]).
van Groenestijn in U.S. Patent 9817143 teaches “Systems and methods for attenuating multiples in seismic data are presented. In one aspect, predicted surface-related multiples are calculated for seismic data generated by receivers in a marine survey. Estimates of primaries and multiples may be calculated by applying adaptive subtraction to the predicted surface-related multiples. Residual multiples present in the estimated primaries may be identified using multiple diffraction reduction. The residual multiples and estimated multiples are used to generate final estimated multiples that are subtracted from the seismic data to generate primaries with attenuated multiples.” (Abstract).
Teague et al. in U.S. Patent 8,580,831 teaches “Methods for attenuating multiple reflections in seismic data by predicting the multiples using wavefield extrapolation modeling, which uses one-way wavefield propagation in both the up and down directions to predict internal multiples up to a specified order” (Abstract).
Feng et al. in U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0155596 teaches “Where multiples are considered undesirable, a process that aims to attenuate the presence of multiples (e.g., the presence of information in seismic data that corresponds to multiple energy) may include an adaptive subtraction process. An adaptive subtraction process can include modeling of multiples to generate a model (e.g., a multiples model) followed by subtracting the model from the acquired data. A technique that can be used for attenuation of multiples may be the extended internal multiple prediction (XIMP), which is a data-driven multiple-modeling approach for prediction of internal multiples from recorded events using wavefield extrapolation, for example, based on the Kirchhoff integral” ([0056]).
Gordon in Foreign Patent GB 2633421A teaches “A method implemented by a computer for imaging a surveyed subsurface formation comprises receiving a recorded seismic dataset associated with the subsurface and estimating a multiple reflection dataset corresponding to a defined subsurface reflector. A partial demultiple dataset is generated by subtracting the multiple reflection dataset from the recorded seismic dataset. A synthetic dataset is generated based on a forward propagation through a received earth model. A residual dataset is calculated based on the partial demultiple dataset and the synthetic dataset and the earth model is updated based on the residual. An image of the surveyed subsurface is generated based on the updated earth model.” (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISCHITA HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm EST.
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 Vazquez can be reached at 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 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.
/MI'SCHITA' HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857