CTNF 18/402,282 CTNF 88058 This Office action is in response to application filed on 01/02/2024. DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 1. 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. 2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as 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. Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are method, CRM, and system which are the statutory categories of invention. Regarding claim 1 , continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations ( see Italic font below ) of: “ determining, based on an eikonal solver and a near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield, a plurality of synthetic first-arrival times corresponding to the plurality of measured first-arrival times of the seismic wavefield; updating, using a wavefield traveltime inversion (WTI) process and based on the plurality of synthetic first-arrival times and the plurality of measured first-arrival times, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield, and providing the updated near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield for well location determination” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test. Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims: Regarding claim 1, the claim recites an additional limitation “obtaining a plurality of first-arrival times of a seismic wavefield measured at a plurality of receiver locations” that is mere data gathering, which is insignificantly extra-solution activity. There is no additional element recited in the claim that integrates the claim into a practical application. Accordingly, that additional element, when considered individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test. Additionally, under Step 2B of the test , claim 1 does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element: recites extra-solution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d); and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., a computer-implemented method, using a computer a tool to perform abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible. Similarly, independent claims 8 and 15 are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1. Regarding the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because: they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims are under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts, and no additional elements recited in the dependent claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, based on the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. 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. 4. Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 (last 2 lines) recites “determining, based on the adjoint source, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield” Claim 4 recites “wherein determining the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield” (lines 1-2) and “determining, based on the gradient vector, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield” (last 2 lines); and Claim 7 recites “determining an initial model for the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield, and determining, based on the eikonal solver and the initial model, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield”, the above limitation “ the ” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the refers to “a near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield” (lines 4-5) or “the updated near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield” (last 2 lines), as recited in claim 1. It is noted “based on adjoin source” (claim 2), “based on the gradient vector” (claim 4), and “based on the eikonal solver” (claim 7), it is interpreted “… the near surface velocity model…” should be “… the updated near surface velocity model …” Similarly, claims 9 and 16 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 2. Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 4. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-fti 5. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action. A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 6. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2022/0187485 of Kim et al., hereinafter Kim485, in view of US 2015/0331122 of Prange et al., hereinafter Prange. As per Claim 1, Kim485 teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a plurality of first-arrival times of a seismic wavefield measured at a plurality of receiver locations ( obtaining seismic data set and picking the arrival-time of the first seismic event in the seismic data set, see Abstract ); determining, based on an eikonal solver and a near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield ( solving eikonal equation [0049], processing a seismic data set comprises to correct for near surface effects, and calculate a seismic velocity model,, see [0021], [0002] ), a plurality of synthetic first-arrival times corresponding to the plurality of measured first-arrival times of the seismic wavefield ( Fig 3 step 306 shows forward intime simulate seismic waves considered “calculating synthetic first-arrival times” [0022], [0027] ); updating, using a wavefield traveltime inversion (WTI) process and based on the plurality of synthetic first-arrival times and the plurality of measured first-arrival times, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield ( update the seismic velocity model [0037], [0041], [0045]. Fig 3 shows a full waveform inversion [0010], [0029]. It is noted a full wave inversion “FWI” having a minimum amplitude is considered “a wavefield travel time inversion, WTI” [0053] ); and providing the updated near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield (see [0045]-[0046] ), Kim485 does not explicitly teach providing the seismic wavefield for well location determination. Prange teaches providing the seismic wavefield for well location determination ( the array of seismic receivers can be deployed within a wellbore. Thus, seismic receivers considered wellbore locations [0093], [0097], [0074]-[0075] ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Kim485 providing seismic receivers for wellbore locations as taught by Prange that would determine the probability of a potential source location is that the wavelets from each of the receivers align at a correct seismic source location (Prange, [0010]). As per Claim 2, Kim485 in view of Prange teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Kim485 further teaches wherein updating the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield comprises: determining, based on the eikonal solver, a plurality of simulated traces at the plurality of receiver locations ( simulated seismic traces used in FWI process wavefield travel time inversion considered simulating traces at receiver locations, and FWI used to update seismic velocity model [0037], where the current seismic velocity model will be updated iteratively as part of inversion [0031], where eikonal equation is solved using velocity mode [0049] ) ; determining, based on the plurality of simulated traces, the plurality of synthetic first-arrival times, and the plurality of measured first-arrival times ( provide stable results from simulated traces used in FWI process, a better estimation of simulated arrival-times of first arrival events [0037] ), an adjoint source for backpropagation in the WTI process ( the source position and backward-propagated waves is obtained by propagating “the difference between the measured seismic data set and the simulated seismic data set in in reverse-time”, considered “adjoin source for backpropagation [0038] ); and determining, based on the adjoint source, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield ( see [0034], [0038]-[0040] ). As per Claim 6, Kim485 in view of Prange teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Kim485 further teaches wherein providing the updated near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield for well location determination comprises: determining, based on the plurality of synthetic first-arrival times and the plurality of measured first-arrival times, an objective function ( Fig 3 step 310-312 show calculate an objective function, see [0034]-[0036] ); determining that the objective function is smaller than a predefined threshold ( determine the objective function below value the preselected value [0040] ); and in response to determining that the objective function is smaller than the predefined threshold, providing the updated near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield for well location determination ( see [0041] ). As per Claim 7, Kim485 in view of Prange teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Kim485 further teaches wherein updating the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield comprises: determining an initial model for the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield ( Fig 3, step 302 ); and determining, based on the eikonal solver and the initial model, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield ( see Claim 7, para 2, [0049] ). Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 1. Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 2. Claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 6. Claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 7. 7. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim485 in view of Prange and further US patent 9435906 of AI-Dossary et al., hereinafter AI-Dossary. As per Claim 3, Kim485 in view of Prange teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Kim485 teaches wherein determining the plurality of simulated traces, Kim485 and Prange do not teach comprises convolving a Ricker wavelet with the plurality of synthetic first-arrival times to generate the plurality of simulated traces. AI-Dossary teaches convolving a Ricker wavelet with the plurality of synthetic first-arrival times to generate the plurality of simulated traces ( the synthesized Ricker wavelet is then convolved in each iteration, see col 8 lines 45-62). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Kim485 comprising convolving a Ricker wavelet as taught by AI-Dossary that would reproduce the wavelet and its power spectrum to a geophysically realistic form (AI-Dossary, col 8 lines 60-65). Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 3 8. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim485 in view of Prange and further US 2020/0301035 of Sun et al., hereinafter Sun. As per Claim 4, Kim485 in view of Prange teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Kim485 teaches wherein determining the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield comprises: determining, based on the adjoint source and the eikonal solver ( solving eikonal equation [0049], processing a seismic data set comprises to correct for near surface effects, and calculate a seismic velocity model,, see [0021], [0002] ), Kim485 and Prange do not teach a gradient vector; and determining, based on the gradient vector, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield. Sun teaches a gradient vector ( Fig 4, step 410. It is noted both the velocity gradient and reflectivity gradient can be considered gradient vectors ); and determining, based on the gradient vector, the near surface velocity model of the seismic wavefield ( a velocity gradient and a reflectivity gradient derived from wavefields in a specific spatial direction is considered for determining a velocity model, see [0029], [0036] ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Kim485 comprising determining gradient vector and the surface velocity model as taught by Sun that would obtain the velocity and density models for direct a hydrocarbon exploration or production operation, and improve the success rate of drilling and reducing geohazards during the production (Sun, [0043]). As per Claim 5, Kim485 in view of Prange and Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, Sun further teaches wherein determining the gradient vector comprises determining, based on the adjoint source, a backpropagated wavefield ( the interface between the layers “adjoin source” can be characterized by the scalar propagation-angle independent reflectivities “backpropagated wavefield”, see [0022]-[0023] ); and determining, based on the backpropagated wavefield, the gradient vector (see [0028]-[0029]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Kim485 comprising determining the surface velocity model as taught by Sun that would obtain the velocity and density models for direct a hydrocarbon exploration or production operation, and improve the success rate of drilling and reducing geohazards during the production (Sun, [0043]). Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 4. Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 5. Conclusion 07-96 AIA 9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160047924 of Krohn et al (Determination of Subsurface Properties in the Vicinity of a Well by Full Wavefield Inversion). US 2018/0246240 of Son et al (Apparatus and method for calculating efficient 3d traveltime by using coarse-grid mesh for shallow depth source). 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270- 7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET. 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 M Vazquez can be reached on 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 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/402,282 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/402,282 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights