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 § 101
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for separating information associated with diffraction events from specular information present in the seismic data, the method:
obtaining an input data, wherein the input data is a pre-stacked seismic data;
building velocity guides by providing a table containing velocity information for time samples for different CDPs (Common-Depth Points) indices;
estimating DSR (Double Square Root) kinematic parameters estimating kinematic parameters associated with the DSR traveltime for each sample of the input data considering an estimation aperture, which comprises the region in which the DSR travel time adjustment to the input data will be evaluated;
DSR stacking each input data sample considering a stacking aperture, which comprises the region in which the input data amplitudes will be stacked over the DSR travel time; and
DSR spreading each sample of the pre-stacked data defining an aperture, wherein the aperture comprises the region in which the amplitudes of the DSR stacked data obtained in the DSR stacking step are distributed over the DSR traveltime.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “estimating DSR (Double Square Root) kinematic parameters estimating kinematic parameters associated with the DSR traveltime for each sample of the input data considering an estimation aperture, which comprises the region in which the DSR travel time adjustment to the input data will be evaluated; DSR stacking each input data sample considering a stacking aperture, which comprises the region in which the input data amplitudes will be stacked over the DSR travel time; and
DSR spreading each sample of the pre-stacked data defining an aperture, wherein the aperture comprises the region in which the amplitudes of the DSR stacked data obtained in the DSR stacking step are distributed over the DSR traveltime” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “building velocity guides by providing a table containing velocity information for time samples for different CDPs (Common-Depth Points) indices” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping and/or mathematical concept grouping.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
The additional element in the preamble of “obtaining an input data, wherein the input data is a pre-stacked seismic data represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coimbra et al. (Enhancement of diffractions in prestack domain by means of a finite-offset double-square-root traveltime, GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 84, NO. 1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2019); P. V81–V96, 17 FIGS.10.1190/GEO2018-0160.1) herein referred to as Coimbra, in view of Jaiswal et al. (US8902709B2, 2014-12-02) herein referred to as Jaiswal.
Regarding Claim 1, Coimbra teaches a method for separating information associated with diffraction events from specular information present in the seismic data (Abstract; pg. V82, first para, right-side), the method:
obtaining an input data, wherein the input data is a pre-stacked seismic data (pg. V82, second para, right-side);
estimating DSR (Double Square Root) kinematic parameters estimating kinematic parameters associated with the DSR traveltime for each sample of the input data considering an estimation aperture, which comprises the region in which the DSR travel time adjustment to the input data will be evaluated (V82, 2 paragraph, left-side);
DSR stacking each input data sample considering a stacking aperture, which comprises the region in which the input data amplitudes will be stacked over the DSR travel time (pg. V86, Step 1, right-side); and
DSR spreading each sample of the pre-stacked data defining an aperture, wherein the aperture comprises the region in which the amplitudes of the DSR stacked data obtained in the DSR stacking step are distributed over the DSR traveltime (pg. V86, Step 2, right-side).
Coimbra fails to specifically teach building velocity guides by providing a table containing velocity information for time samples for different CDPs (Common-Depth Points) indices. However, in a related field, Jaiswal teaches building velocity guides by providing a table containing velocity information for time samples for different CDPs (Common-Depth Points) indices (Col. 16, lines 26-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coimbra to incorporate the teachings of Jaiswal by including: building velocity guides by providing a table containing velocity information for time samples for different CDPs (Common-Depth Points) indices in order to improve depth images and velocity models.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein building velocity further comprises replicating velocities of each sample of a zero offset panel, along the offsets, following the NMO (Normal Moveout) curve (Jaiswal: Col. 16, lines 26-39).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination teaches the method claim 1, wherein estimating DSR (Double Square Root) kinematic parameters further comprises defining the execution parameters (Coimbra: V86, second to last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination further teaches the method of claim 4, characterized in that the execution parameters comprise one or more of: guide velocity deviation, coherence window, processing region delimitation, estimation apertures and output geometry. (Coimbra: V86, second to last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination further teaches the method of claim wherein estimating DSR kinematic parameters further comprises estimating the DSR kinematic parameters that adjusted based on the input data, and wherein the adjustment is measured through semblance for different values of kinematic parameters (Coimbra: V91, Second paragraph, right-side).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein DSR stacking comprises stacking in the output geometry the amplitudes of the DSR travel time surfaces adjusted to the input data, based on the estimation apertures defined in the DSR kinematic parameters (Coimbra: V86, second to last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the DSR spreading comprises spreading in the output geometry the stacked amplitudes of the DSR stacking (Coimbra: V86, second to last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination teaches The method of claim 4, wherein estimating DSR kinematic parameters further comprises estimating the DSR kinematic parameters that adjusted based on the input data, and wherein the adjustment is measured through semblance for different values of kinematic parameters (Coimbra: V91, Second paragraph, right-side).
Claim 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coimbra and Jaiswal as applied to claims 1, 4-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Popovici et al. (US6778909B1, 2004-08-17) herein referred to as Popovici.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Coimbra and Jaiswal teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. The combination fails to interpolation of the table (data) via linear interpolation. However, in a related field, Popovici teaches interpolation of input data sampling (Claim 14 and 15; Col. 5, lines 30-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coimbra and Jaiswal to incorporate the teachings of Popovici by including: linear interpolation in order to refine input data sampling.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein building velocity further comprises replicating velocities of each sample of a zero offset panel, along the offsets, following the NMO (Normal Moveout) curve (Jaiswal: Col. 16, lines 26-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Jin et al. (STRUCTURE TENSOR CONSTRAINED TOMOGRAPHIC VELOCITY ANALYSIS, 2016-04-28) teaches an example method for tomographic migration velocity analysis may include collecting seismographic traces from a subterranean formation and using an initial velocity model to generate common image gathers and a depth image volume based, at least in part, on the seismographic traces. A structure tensor may be computed with the depth image volume for automated structural dip and azimuth estimation. A semblance may be generated using said plurality of common image gathers and said structure tensor. Image depth residuals may be automatically picked from said semblance. A ray tracing computation may be performed on said initial velocity models using said structure tensor. An updated velocity model may be generated with a tomographic inversion computation, wherein said tomographic inversion computation uses said plurality of image depth residuals and said ray tracing computation;
Ji et al. (Picking Seismic Stacking Velocity Based On Structures In A Subterranean Formation, 2020-12-03) teaches systems and methods for picking seismic stacking velocity based on structures in a subterranean formation include: receiving seismic data representing a subterranean formation; generating semblance spectrums from the seismic data representing the subterranean formation; smoothing the semblance spectrums; and picking stacking velocities based on the smoothed semblance spectrums;
Burnett et al. (Creating Seismic Images Using Expanded Image Gathers, 2017-08-15) teaches an inventive method, individual traces of seismic data are migrated (41) without any assembling of different midpoints or any summing of different offsets, so that post-migration processing or analysis, e.g. trace alignment, may be applied to the individual migrated traces (42) to compensate for any deficiencies among them, before stack and assembly. Thus, the present invention fully separates the steps of migration (41), assembly (43), and stacking (44), which are combined together in traditional migration. Thus, imaging deficiencies can be measured and addressed in the image space before they are obscured by summation. Afterward, summation can proceed to construct the improved final image (45).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863