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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 8, and 15, the claims each recite the limitations "the gathering of cross-correlation functions" and “the collection of cross-correlation functions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, each of the claims recite the limitation “a tensor of cross-correlation functions”, however none of the claims recite “a gathering of cross-correlation functions” or “a collection of cross-correlation functions”, so it is unclear whether “the gathering of cross-correlation functions” or “the collection of cross-correlation functions” refers to a grouping of cross-correlation functions that are equivalent to “the tensor of cross-correlations” or whether they refer to independent groupings with different uses than “tensor of cross-correlation functions”. It is the examiner’s interpretation that “the gathering of cross-correlation functions” and “the collection of cross-correlation functions” refers to “the tensor of cross-correlation functions”. Therefore claims 1, 8, and 15 are unclear and thus, indefinite.
Further regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite the limitation “the expected vertical component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previosly, claims 1, 8, and 15, recite “a vertical component”, however there is no recitation of “an expected vertical component”, so it is unclear if “the expected vertical component” corresponds to “the vertical component” or whether it is another vertical component entirely. Therefore claims 1, 8, and 15 are unclear and thus, indefinite. It is the examiner’s interpretation that “the expected vertical component” refers to a modelled vertical component that is to be compared to “the vertical component”.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are further rejected due to their respective dependence upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. ("Detection and denoising of microseismic events using time–frequency representation and tensor decomposition." IEEE access 6 (2018): 22993-23006., “Iqbal”) in view of Love et al. (US 20140160881 A1, “Love”) and Li et al. ("Microseismic joint location and anisotropic velocity inversion for hydraulic fracturing in a tight Bakken reservoir." Geophysics 79.5 (2014): C111-C122., “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Iqbal discloses a method for detecting and imaging subsurface search objects, the method comprising: positioning a plurality of sensors to record microseismic signals in a predetermined area; recording microseismic signals in the predetermined area, the microseismic signals comprising waves with a vertical component and a horizontal component; processing the recorded microseismic signals including by: filtering noise in the recorded microseismic signals associated with a correlated horizontal wave component from the vertical wave component; accumulation of the tensor of cross-correlation functions ([pg. 3] tensor analysis performed regarding the 3C tensors measured at each geophone in the array fully represents the correlation among all traces recorded in time); suppressing the scattered component of the Rayleigh surface wave using the tensor of the cross-correlation functions ([pg. 1] denoising is performed to reduce interference caused by surface waves. First step of processing after initial detection of microseismic events is to denoise the microseismic data in order to accurately recover event signals); and performing final filtering on the collection of cross-correlation functions to exclude an inclined component in the gathering of cross-correlation functions (Fig. 3, [pg. 5], for the application of microseismic data denoising, 3rd order tensor is decomposed into 3 modes.)(Fig. 5 illustrates the 3 modes resulting from the tensor decomposition, which excludes inclined components)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the tensor analysis performed comprises the correlation between all signal traces, the tensor decomposition is also performed on the tensor of cross correlation) retrieving the vertically propagating waves from the microseismic ambient background in the recorded microseismic signals including by: excluding broadband interference from the microseismic ambient background wave field(Implicit, Fig. 3, [pg. 5], for the application of microseismic data denoising, 3rd order tensor is decomposed into 3 modes.)(Fig. 5 illustrates the 3 modes resulting from the tensor decomposition, including vertical components) ([pg. 1]First step of processing after initial detection of microseismic events is to denoise the microseismic data in order to accurately recover event signals)
Iqbal may not explicitly teach filtering a narrowband harmonic component of the recorded microseismic signals; retrieving the vertically propagating waves from the microseismic ambient background in the recorded microseismic signals including by: excluding broadband interference from the microseismic ambient background wave field; modeling the expected vertical component in the predetermined area by way of a seismic simulation that enables the propagation of seismic waves in a multiphase medium, wherein the modeling is based on prior data for the predetermined area, including vertical seismic profile, depth and time maps, or elevation data; and generating a predicted subsurface earth structure by comparing the recorded, processed microseismic signals to the modeled expected vertical component in the predetermined area.
Love teaches filtering a narrowband harmonic component of the recorded microseismic signals ([0108]-[0109] real time adjustments to parameters that optimize target of interest response including utilizing a narrowband that produces a harmonic response of the target of interest while eliminating non-pertinent data).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of passive seismic monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Iqbal, to include the narrowband harmonic filtering of Love with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the quality of the subsurface image produced by tailoring acquisition and processing to the requirements of each unique application [0110].
Iqbal, as modified in view of Love may not explicitly teach modeling the expected vertical component in the predetermined area by way of a seismic simulation that enables the propagation of seismic waves in a multiphase medium, wherein the modeling is based on prior data for the predetermined area, including vertical seismic profile, depth and time maps, or elevation data; and generating a predicted subsurface earth structure by comparing the recorded, processed microseismic signals to the modeled expected vertical component in the predetermined area.
Li teaches modeling the expected vertical component in the predetermined area by way of a seismic simulation that enables the propagation of seismic waves in a multiphase medium, wherein the modeling is based on prior data for the predetermined area, including vertical seismic profile, depth and time maps, or elevation data ([pg. 2], previous data was taken over a two-day period in the beaver lodge area of the Bakken in a horizontal well in an tight reservoir)([pg. 3] to construct a starting model, well logs from the area were utilized); and generating a predicted subsurface earth structure by comparing the recorded, processed microseismic signals to the modeled expected vertical component in the predetermined area ([pg. 5], synthetic and observed p-wave and SH-wave traveltimes and their residuals for the selected microseismic events and compared)(Fig. 6 and 9 illustrate the comparison between the synthetic and observed P-wave and SH-wave data based on receiver number)([pg. 8], validation between generated synthetic waveforms and observed waveforms is carried out based on P- and SH-wave amplitudes).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of passive seismic monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Iqbal, as modified in view of Love to include the propagation modeling of Li with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately and reliably characterizing fractures and fault activity associated with producing a reservoir [pg. 9].
Regarding claim 2, Iqbal, as modified in view of Love and Li teaches the method of claim 1. Li further teaches the plurality of sensors are positioned in a generally irregular grid and the predetermined area comprises an observation area and a study area, the study area located within the observation area(Fig. 2 illustrates the distribution grid of the geophone arrays positioned in wells G1-G4. The distribution of the wells and therefore the grid appear to be generally irregular)([pg. 2], microseismic dataset was generated from data gathered across two producing wells and two injection wells with 17 or 18 3C geophones in each well located in the Bakken formation. Data was gathered throughout the entire monitoring period)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the Bakken formation is equivalent to the observation area and the four wells are equivalent to boundaries for the study area).
Regarding claim 3, Iqbal, as modified in view of Love and Li teaches the method of claim 2. Li further teaches wherein the predicted subsurface earth structure corresponds to the study area ([pg. 2], previous data was taken over a two-day period in the beaver lodge area of the Bakken in a horizontal well in an tight reservoir)([pg. 2], microseismic dataset was generated from data gathered across two producing wells and two injection wells with 17 or 18 3C geophones in each well located in the Bakken formation. Data was gathered throughout the entire monitoring period)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the Bakken formation is equivalent to the observation area, the four wells are equivalent to boundaries for the study area, and the tight reservoir is the predicted subsurface structure).
Regarding claim 5, Iqbal, as modified in view of Love, Li, and Ferber teaches the method of claim 2. Iqbal further teaches at least two of the plurality of sensors positioned in the grid comprise a pair with a middle point between the pair to which a cross-correlation tensor is assigned([pg. 3] tensor analysis performed regarding the 3C tensors measured at each geophone in the array fully represents the correlation among all traces recorded in time)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the tensor analysis assigns a tensor which is correlated among all traces, the tensor would implicitly be assigned to a pair of traces resulting from measurements taken by at least two geophones, as well as their midpoint).
Regarding claim 6, Iqbal, as modified in view of Love and Li teaches the method of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein the predetermined area is divided into a plurality of microgroups ([pg. 2], microseismic dataset was generated from data gathered across two producing wells and two injection wells with 17 or 18 3C geophones in each well. Data was gathered throughout the entire monitoring period).
Regarding claim 7, Iqbal, as modified in view of Love and Li teaches the method of claim 2. Li further teaches wherein the search objects comprise an underground reservoir ([pg. 2], previous data was taken over a two-day period in the beaver lodge area of the Bakken in a horizontal well in an tight reservoir)([pg. 2], microseismic dataset was generated from data gathered across two producing wells and two injection wells with 17 or 18 3C geophones in each well located in the Bakken formation. Data was gathered throughout the entire monitoring period).
Regarding claim 8, the claims is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the claims is a system claim corresponding to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claims is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the claims is a method claim corresponding to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal in view of Love, Li, and Issa et al. ("Passive seismic imaging at reservoir depths using ambient seismic noise recorded at the Otway CO2 geological storage research facility." Geophysical Journal International 209.3 (2017): 1622-1628., “Issa”).
Regarding claim 4, Iqbal, as modified in view of Love, and Li teaches the method of claim 2. Iqbal, as modified in view of Love and Li may not explicitly teach the plurality of sensors are configured for simultaneous recording.
Issa teaches the plurality of sensors are configured for simultaneous recording ([pg. 2] the passive seismic data set used for the analysis consisted of a continuous 14-hr subset of the geophone recordings).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of passive seismic monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Iqbal, as modified in view of Love and Li, to include the continuous monitoring of Issa with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of producing a seismic data set that are capable of matching well with active-source 3-D seismic images [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 11, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Abel et al. (US 9945970 B1, “Abel”) which discloses a method and apparatus for modeling microseismic events
Saade et al. ("Influence of seismic anisotropy on the cross correlation tensor: numerical investigations." Geophysical Journal International 201.2 (2015): 595-604., "Saade") which discloses methods for determining the cross correlation tensor in seismic imaging
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645