DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 27th February, 2026. No Claim(s) were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-5 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 3-5), with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under AlA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being anticipated by KARRENBACH (WO 2016/185223 A1) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Karrenbach does not disclose each and every claim element as arranged in the claims. Assuming arguendo that Karrenbach discloses using two different sensor arrays, it does not disclose “acquiring a first signal” and “acquiring a second signal.” In the relied upon sections of Karrenbach, there is only disclosed a single event, 30, and thus only a single signal from that event. Applicant has reviewed the relied upon sections and does not see a disclosure of two different signals. Let alone, that those two different signals are being acquired by two different sensor arrays.” Further, Karrenbach does not disclose the claim requirement that the location of sensors on the second sensor array are used to process the first signal, which is acquired by the first sensor array. The relied upon sections of Karrenbach do not appear to disclose using the location of a second sensor array as part of the processing, let alone as part of the processing of the first signal. In addition to requiring that the location of the second sensor array is used in the processing the first image, the claim requires “migrating the processes first and second signals together.” (emphasis added) It is the processing and migration of these signals that is used to form the image. Karrenbach does not disclose this process. Instead Karrenbach at best suggests stitching different images together, along the lines of photoshop [...] Applicant respectfully declines the Examiner's suggestion that Applicant consider and address portions of the prior art that are not expressly relied upon by the Examiner. It is the Examiner's responsibility, not Applicant's, to specific identify the relied upon sections of the prior art and then attempt to apply those sections to the claim elements.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that KARRENBACH discloses and anticipates “acquiring a first signal with a first sensor array”. KARRENBACH expressly teaches that a sensor array records/acquires a microseismic event wave field. Specifically, Clm. 24; Pg. 31, Ln, 11-14 recite: “a memory for storing a data set corresponding to a recording by a sensor array of a microseismic event wave field”. Furthermore, Clm. 28; PG. 32, Ln 10-13 disclose: “using one or more sensors to record a microseismic event wave field”. Additionally, Pg. 14, Ln. 5-20 disclose: “The data collected by the sensor array 13 is processed to create a planar image slice 15”. Thus, KARRENBACH expressly teaches acquisition/recording of seismic wavefield data (i.e., signals) using sensor array.
Furthermore, that only a single microseismic event is disclosed is unpersuasive because the claims do not require separate seismic source events. A single microseismic event inherently produces seismic wavefields detected as corresponding signals at receiving sensor arrays. Accordingly, the recorded wavefield at the first sensor array reasonably corresponds to the claimed first signal. Additional support is found in Pg. 15, Ln. 24-26, which discloses that the wavefield comprises measurable components: “The microseismic event wave field is defined by measurement of any of: (a) one or more displacement/velocity/acceleration components; (b) one or more pressure components; and (c) one or more strain components/strain rate components”. Thus, KARRENBACH clearly teaches acquisition of a signal using a first sensor array.
The Examiner maintains that KARRENBACH discloses and anticipates “acquiring a second signal with a second sensor array”. KARRENBACH expressly discloses multiple sensor arrays deployed in multiple observation wells collecting wavefield data associated with the same microseismic event. Specifically, Pg. 25, Ln 19-27 disclose: “two or more boreholes with sensor/receiver arrays are used to collect wave field data”. Furthermore, Pg. 23, Ln. 30-Pg. 24, Ln 3 disclose: “For each microseismic event 30, a plane 50 is imaged containing the event location 30 and the observation well 40 containing the borehole sensor array 13. Multiple image planes 50 associated with a single microseismic event 30 and multiple receiver wells 40 can be combined to develop a three-dimensional volume image 20.” Additionally, Pg. 24, Ln 5-15 disclose: “multiple planar images associated with a plurality of planar slices 50, 52, 54, 56 generated from a single microseismic event 30”. Figures 7-10 likewise illustrate multiple observation wells and associated sensor arrays collecting seismic wavefield data corresponding to the same event. Accordingly, the reference teaches acquisition of wavefield signals at multiple sensor arrays. The signal acquired at one sensor array constitutes the claimed first signal, while the signal acquired at another sensor array constitutes the second signal. Applicant improperly imports a limitation requiring separate seismic source events, which is not recited by the claims.
The Examiner maintains that KARRENBACH discloses and anticipates “processing the first signal whereby the location of sensors on the second sensor array is utilized as part of the processing”. KARRENBACH expressly discloses interferometric processing utilizing sensor locations from multiple sensor arrays and multiple wells. Specifically, Claim 8; Pg. 29, Ln. 1-3 disclose: “generating a three-dimensional computational grid based on the location of the sensor array and the likely event azimuth”. Furthermore, Pg. 20, Ln. 22-30 disclose: “selected or all components of the P wave and S wave fields are injected into the computational grid. In step 250 wave fields are extrapolated in the respective computational domain from the locations of the sensors 12 and propagated laterally away from the sensor locations”. Additionally, Pg. 25, Ln. 19-27 disclose: “The newly constructed virtual cross-well data set contains virtual sources at each of the sensor locations in the boreholes 62, 64”. Further support is found in Pg. 19, Ln. 1-5 “the distance from each microseismic event location to the location of each sensor is in part determined according to the P wave and S wave arrival time picks”. These disclosures demonstrate that the interferometric imaging process utilizes the locations of sensors from multiple arrays during the seismic processing computations. Applicant’s argument KARRENBACH merely processes signals independently is contradicted by the express disclosures and locations of multiple sensor arrays during propagation, extrapolation, and imaging operations. Therefore, KARRENBACH teaches processing a first signal whereby locations of sensors on another sensor array are utilized as part of the processing.
The Examiner maintains that KARRENBACH discloses and anticipates “migrating the processes first and second signals together”. KARRENBACH expressly discloses combined interferometric migration and joint image generation using signals acquired from multiple sensor arrays. Specifically, Pg. 23, Ln. 30-Pg. 24, Ln 3 disclose: “Multiple image planes 50 associated with a single microseismic event 30 and multiple receiver wells 40 can be combined to develop a three-dimensional volume image 20.” Furthermore, Pg. 20, Ln. 30-36 disclose: “P-wave and s-wave fields are propagated within the computational domain” and “wave equation migration algorithm”. Additionally, Pg. 21, Ln. 1-15 disclose: “an interferometric imaging condition between P and S wave fields is applied”. Further, Clm. 29; Pg. 32, Ln. 16-35 disclose: “extrapolating the P wave fields and the S wave fields in the respective computational domains from the locations of the sensors and propagating the P wave fields and S wave fields laterally away from the sensor locations”. Moreover, Pg. 24, Ln. 8-28 disclose: “the resulting image slices are consistently illuminated and combined to suppress inconsistent noise and generate a unified image representation”. These disclosures demonstrate that the seismic wavefield signals acquired from multiple sensor arrays are jointly propagated, migrated, interferometrically processed, and combined within a common computational framework to generate a unified three-dimensional seismic image volume. This is substantially more than merely stitching independent images together after separate processing. Accordingly, KARRENBACH reasonably teaches migrating the processed first and second signals together such that a detailed image of the subterranean feature and its position are determined, as claimed.
Furthermore, Examiner has properly identified specific portions of KARRENBACH to illustrate teachings relevant to the rejected claim limitations and to provide applicant notice of the basis for the rejection. However, as stated in the Examiner’s note, the cited passages are not limiting as to the full teachings of the reference.
It is well established that KARRENBACH must be considered for everything it reasonably teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, not merely the specific excerpts initially cited in the rejection. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Accordingly, the examiner may properly rely upon additional portions of the reference that further explain, clarify, or reinforce the teachings identified in the rejection. Applicant’s position that the examiner is limited only to the originally cited passages or that “it is the Examiner's responsibility, not Applicant's, to specific identify the relied upon sections of the prior art and then attempt to apply those sections to the claim elements” is inconsistent with the established precedent and improper because a reference must be considered as a whole for all that it reasonably teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, applicant has been fully appraised of the basis of the rejection because the office action identified the rejected limitations, the relied upon references, and exemplary supporting citations sufficient permit applicant to respond substantively, as evidenced by the present arguments. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” or “(a)(2)” or both as being anticipated by KARRENBACH (WO 2016/185223 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, KARRENBACH teaches a method of obtaining enhanced images of subterranean features (Pg. 14 Ln 6-19: A microseismic event 30 is created during a hydraulic fracturing operation. The data collected by the sensor array 13 is processed to create a planar image slice 15 having a targeted image area 35), the method comprising:
acquiring a first signal with a first sensor array (Pg. 23 Ln. 23-28: planar slice 50 provides high-resolution definition of the local formation disposed between the borehole array 13 in the observation well 40 and the location of the microseismic event 30; Clm. 24; Pg. 31, Ln, 11-14: a memory for storing a data set corresponding to a recording by a sensor array of a microseismic event wave field; Clm. 28; PG. 32, Ln 10-13: using one or more sensors to record a microseismic event wave field; Pg. 14, Ln. 5-20: The data collected by the sensor array 13 is processed to create a planar image slice 15; Pg. 15, Ln. 24-26, which discloses that the wavefield comprises measurable components: “The microseismic event wave field is defined by measurement of any of: (a) one or more displacement/velocity/acceleration components; (b) one or more pressure components; and (c) one or more strain components/strain rate components);
acquiring a second signal with a second sensor array (Pg. 23, Ln. 30 to Pg. 24, Ln. 3; Pg. 24, Ln. 30 - Pg. 25 Ln. 3: a single microseismic event 30 can be captured and recorded by a plurality of sensor arrays 13; Pg. 25, Ln 19-27: two or more boreholes with sensor/receiver arrays are used to collect wave field data; Pg. 23, Ln. 30-Pg. 24, Ln 3: For each microseismic event 30, a plane 50 is imaged containing the event location 30 and the observation well 40 containing the borehole sensor array 13. Multiple image planes 50 associated with a single microseismic event 30 and multiple receiver wells 40 can be combined to develop a three-dimensional volume image 20; Pg. 24, Ln 5-15: multiple planar images associated with a plurality of planar slices 50, 52, 54, 56 generated from a single microseismic event 30. Figures 7-10);
processing the first signal whereby the location of sensors on the second sensor array is utilized as part of the processing (Pg. 23 Ln. 30 - Pg. 24 Ln. 3: Multiple image planes 50 associated with a single microseismic event 30 and multiple receiver wells 40 [...]; Claim 8; Pg. 29, Ln. 1-3: generating a three-dimensional computational grid based on the location of the sensor array and the likely event azimuth. Pg. 20, Ln. 22-30: selected or all components of the P wave and S wave fields are injected into the computational grid. In step 250 wave fields are extrapolated in the respective computational domain from the locations of the sensors 12 and propagated laterally away from the sensor locations. Pg. 25, Ln. 19-27: The newly constructed virtual cross-well data set contains virtual sources at each of the sensor locations in the boreholes 62, 64; Pg. 19, Ln. 1-5: the distance from each microseismic event location to the location of each sensor is in part determined according to the P wave and S wave arrival time picks);
processing the second signal (Pg. 23, Ln. 30-35; Pg. 24, Ln 5-Pg. 25, In 3; Pg. 25, In 19-27);
migrating the processes first and second signals together (Pg. 23 Ln. 30 - Pg. 24 Ln. 3: Multiple image planes 50 associated with a single microseismic event 30 and multiple receiver wells 40 can be combined to develop a three-dimensional volume image 20; Pg. 23, Ln. 30-Pg. 24, Ln 3: Multiple image planes 50 associated with a single microseismic event 30 and multiple receiver wells 40 can be combined to develop a three-dimensional volume image 20; Pg. 20, Ln. 30-36: P-wave and s-wave fields are propagated within the computational domain and wave equation migration algorithm; Pg. 21, Ln. 1-15: an interferometric imaging condition between P and S wave fields is applied; Clm. 29; Pg. 32, Ln. 16-35: extrapolating the P wave fields and the S wave fields in the respective computational domains from the locations of the sensors and propagating the P wave fields and S wave fields laterally away from the sensor locations; Pg. 24, Ln. 8-28: the resulting image slices are consistently illuminated and combined to suppress inconsistent noise and generate a unified image representation);
whereby a detailed image of the feature and its position are determined (Pg. 4, Ln. 13-15: sufficient resolution to allow the determination of important details; Pg. 7, Ln. 16-18: determine the location of origin of each microseismic event; Pg. 26 Ln. 7-27: sensor array can support enhanced control of actual hydraulic fracturing operations in real-time to assess the distribution and placement of fracture fluid and proppant by monitoring microseismic events throughout the fracturing operation).
Referring to Claim 2, KARRENBACH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second signals are the same (Pg. 25 Ln. 19-27: newly constructed virtual cross-well data set contains virtual sources at each of the sensor locations in the boreholes 62, 64. This data set is processed as if a real down-hole source data set had been collected with the same source frequency
characteristics as the microseismic event 34; Pg. 23, Ln. 30 to Pg. 24, Ln. 6).
Referring to Claim 3, KARRENBACH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second signals are different (Pg. 21, Ln. 17-21: propagation will incorporate internal reflections, diffractions and other effects, which will image the event 30 and secondary scattering sources under different radiation angles).
Referring to Claim 4, KARRENBACH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second signals are spaced apart in time (Pg. 25, Ln. 29 – Pg. 26, Ln. 5: interferometric method 10 supports analysis of time-lapse effects, e.g., features that have changed at different fracturing stages or at differing stages of steam flood, water flood, reservoir depletion and other time-based subsurface changes).
Referring to Claim 5, KARRENBACH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first signal is a passive signal (Pg. 4, Ln. 27-36: the present invention provides an interferometric method for imaging the Earth's subsurface using microseismic events and/or passive seismic events recorded by borehole sensors; Pg. 7, Ln. 16-19).
Referring to Claim(s) 6-37, (cancelled).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is 571-272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights