DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on January 22, 2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
reflection points (224) (see specification at [0060]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0005]: Language “Implementations may include one or more of the following features.” should read “Implementations may include one or more of the following features[[.]]:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0007]: Language “The implementations may include one or more of the following features.” should read “The implementations may include one or more of the following features[[.]]:” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0033]: Language “Consequently, seismic datasets (l04) are typically processed to remove or attenuate noise and to correctly locate geological boundaries that reflect seismic waves (“seismic reflectors” in two-dimensional (“'2D”) or three-dimensional (“3D”) space within the subterranean region” should read “Consequently, seismic datasets (l04) are typically processed to remove or attenuate noise and to correctly locate geological boundaries that reflect seismic waves (“seismic reflectors” in two-dimensional (“'2D”) or three-dimensional (“3D”) space) within the subterranean region” in order to correct for minor informalities (i.e., add closing parenthesis).
[0038]: Language “To determine the geological structure corresponding to, or that produced, the seismic image (108) the seismic image (108) is typically “interpreted'” using a seismic interpretation workstation (110)” should read “To determine the geological structure corresponding to, or that produced, the seismic image (108), the seismic image (108) is typically “interpreted'” using a seismic interpretation workstation (110)” in order to correct for minor informalities (i.e., add comma).
[0039]: Language “A seismic interpretation system (110) is primarily used by geoscientists …” should read “A seismic interpretation workstation (110) is primarily used by geoscientists …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0040]: Language “For example, a seismic interpretation system (110) enables interpreters …” should read “For example, a seismic interpretation workstation (110) enables interpreters …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0041]: Language “Interpreters may use the seismic interpretation system (110) …” should read “Interpreters may use the seismic interpretation workstation (110) …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0042]: Language “The seismic interpretation system (110) may facilitate …” should read “The seismic interpretation workstation (110) may facilitate …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0043]: Language “The seismic interpretation system (110) can be instrumental … The seismic interpretation system (110) may be a specialized …” should read “The seismic interpretation workstation (110) can be instrumental … The seismic interpretation workstation (110) may be a specialized …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0044]: Language “A high-performance seismic interpretation system (l10) with a powerful processor …” should read “A high-performance seismic interpretation workstation (l10) with a powerful processor …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0045]: Language “The seismic interpretation system (110) may be equipped …” should read “The seismic interpretation workstation (110) may be equipped …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0046]: Language “The seismic interpretation system (110) often requires …” should read “The seismic interpretation workstation (110) often requires …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0047]: Language “The seismic interpretation system (110) should have backup solutions … In some cases, seismic interpreters may need remote access to the seismic interpretation system ( 110) or collaborate … The seismic interpretation (110) may be customized …” should read “The seismic interpretation workstation (110) should have backup solutions … In some cases, seismic interpreters may need remote access to the seismic interpretation workstation ( 110) or collaborate … The seismic interpretation workstation (110) may be customized …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0050]: Language “The wellbore plan (120) may be informed …” should read “The wellbore drilling plan (120) may be informed …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0051]: Language “If casing is used, the wellbore plan (120) may include casing type or casing depths, Furthermore, the wellbore plan (120) may consider … The wellbore plan (120) may further define …” should read “If casing is used, the wellbore drilling plan (120) may include casing type or casing depths, Furthermore, the wellbore drilling plan (120) may consider … The wellbore drilling plan (120) may further define …” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0056]: Language “Further, when the physical and petrophysical properties of the rocks and fluids vary as a function of position the governing equations may not be solved …” should read “Further, when the physical and petrophysical properties of the rocks and fluids vary as a function of position, the governing equations may not be solved …” in order to correct for minor informalities (i.e., add comma).
[0058]: Language “… (so-called “logging-while-drilling” (LWD) logs or during drilling pauses in, or at the completion of drilling of, a wellbore specified by the drilling plan (120) … with the aid of a seismic interpretation workstation or to directly update …” should read “… (so-called “logging-while-drilling” (LWD) logs) or during drilling pauses in, or at the completion of drilling of, a wellbore specified by the wellbore drilling plan (120) … with the aid of a seismic interpretation workstation (110) or to directly update …” in order to correct for minor informalities (i.e., add closing parenthesis) and in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
[0076]: Language “FIGS. 7 A-7F, 8A-8F, and 9A-9F present the results, which further including the results of applying a control method …” should read “FIGS. 7 A-7F, 8A-8F, and 9A-9F present the results, which further include the results of applying a control method …” in order to correct for minor informalities Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “accessing an input set of seismic data acquired from receivers placed at a geophysical exploration site, the input set of seismic data comprising a plurality of data traces recorded at the receivers in response to launching, at a vibration source, an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at the geophysical exploration site” should read “accessing an input set of seismic data acquired from receivers placed at a geophysical exploration site, the input set of seismic data comprising a plurality of data traces recorded at the receivers in response to launching, [[at]]by a vibration source, an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at the geophysical exploration site” in order to correct for minor informalities and clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein said interpolating comprises using a linear-bilinear interpolation that interpolates [[a]]the missing data point based on two data points, each of the two data points being interpolated by a respective linear interpolation” in order to correct for minor informalities and clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the local traveltime operator comprises a quadratic function in two orthogonal space dimensions, wherein the quadratic function is defined by a set of parameters, and wherein estimating the local traveltime operators comprises identifying an extremum of a semblance cost function associated with the set of parameters” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “accessing an input set of seismic data acquired from receivers placed at a geophysical exploration site, the input set of seismic data comprising a plurality of data traces recorded at the receivers in response to launching, at a vibration source, an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at the geophysical exploration site” should read “accessing an input set of seismic data acquired from receivers placed at a geophysical exploration site, the input set of seismic data comprising a plurality of data traces recorded at the receivers in response to launching, [[at]]by a vibration source, an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at the geophysical exploration site” in order to correct for minor informalities and clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The computer system of claim 12, wherein said interpolating comprises using a linear-bilinear interpolation that interpolates [[a]]the missing data point based on two data points, each of the two data points being interpolated by a respective linear interpolation” in order to correct for minor informalities and clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The computer system of claim 11, further comprising: a seismic interpretation workstation configured to identify a drilling target based, at least in part, on the wavefield image; and a well planning system configured to plan a wellbore trajectory guided by the drilling target” in order to correct for minor informalities and clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The computer system of claim 11, wherein the local traveltime operator comprises a quadratic function in two orthogonal space dimensions, wherein the quadratic function is defined by a set of parameters, and wherein estimating the local traveltime operators comprises identifying an extremum of a semblance cost function associated with the set of parameters” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 recites “performing a weighted sum of the reconstructed stack of wavefronts so that a wavefield image of the acoustic wave in the subterranean region of interest is formed and visualized with sufficient clarity to facilitate decision making at the geophysical exploration site” which is unclear as to what the scope of “sufficient clarity” encompass (e.g., what can be considered as an image with sufficient clarity by one operator, may not be enough for another operator. Also, what criteria is used to evaluate this clarity as being sufficient? Color? Resolution? Size? etc.). Similar language is recited in independent claim 11, with none of the dependent claims clarifying the recited subject matter.
The specification describes similar language while also making comparisons with control methods (see [0076]-[0077]).
For examination purposes, claim language is interpreted as “performing a weighted sum of the reconstructed stack of wavefronts so that a wavefield image of the acoustic wave in the subterranean region of interest is formed and visualized
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, 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 claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see italic text for abstract idea):
the limitation “estimating local traveltime operators for the plurality of data traces, wherein each local traveltime operator describes a traveltime characteristic for a wavefront of the acoustic wave to travel from the vibration source, through the subterranean region of interest, and recorded as a sample point in one of the plurality of data traces” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., local traveltime operators; see specification at [0065]-[0068]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “correcting at least one local traveltime operator based on, at least in part, statistical features of traveltime characteristics described by other local traveltime operators associated with sample points that are adjacent to the sample point associated with the at least one local traveltime operator” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data (i.e., correcting at least one local traveltime operator; see specification at [0069]-[0071]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “reconstructing a stack of wavefronts described by the at least one corrected local traveltime operator” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data (i.e., reconstructing a stack of wavefronts; see specification at [0072]-[0073]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “performing a weighted sum of the reconstructed stack of wavefronts so that a wavefield image of the acoustic wave in the subterranean region of interest is formed and visualized with sufficient clarity to facilitate decision making at the geophysical exploration site” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data to make decisions (e.g., performing a weighted sum of the reconstructed stack of wavefronts to generate a wavefield image to evaluate options; see specification at [0074]-[0075]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated, data outputting) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to transform data and evaluate information.
Therefore, the claim recites 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 when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (see non-italic text for additional elements):
“A computer-implemented method” adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“accessing an input set of seismic data acquired from receivers placed at a geophysical exploration site, the input set of seismic data comprising a plurality of data traces recorded at the receivers in response to launching, at a vibration source, an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at the geophysical exploration site” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., receivers, a vibration source) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“estimating local traveltime operators for the plurality of data traces, wherein each local traveltime operator describes a traveltime characteristic for a wavefront of the acoustic wave to travel from the vibration source, through the subterranean region of interest, and recorded as a sample point in one of the plurality of data traces” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a vibration source) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“correcting at least one local traveltime operator based on, at least in part, statistical features of traveltime characteristics described by other local traveltime operators associated with sample points that are adjacent to the sample point associated with the at least one local traveltime operator” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
“performing a weighted sum of the reconstructed stack of wavefronts so that a wavefield image of the acoustic wave in the subterranean region of interest is formed and visualized with sufficient clarity to facilitate decision making at the geophysical exploration site” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated, data outputting) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do 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, the claim, when considered as a whole, 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 elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., processing and visualization of field seismic data, see specification at [0001], [0023]), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering/outputting by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated) using elements (i.e., receivers, a vibration source) specified at a high level of generality, which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); and
Append computer implementation (see specification at [0006]), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (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 claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 2-10 and 12-20), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic computer components and/or field of use (Claims 8 and 18), which as indicated in 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) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Sun (Yimin Sun, Ilya Silvestrov, Andrey Bakulin, Accelerating the 2+2+1 method for estimating local traveltime operators in nonlinear beamforming using GPU graphics cards, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, Volume 19, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 389–402, https://doi.org/10.1093/jge/gxac028) discloses/teaches:
A computer-implemented method (Abstract: estimation of unknown local traveltime operators using nonlinear beamforming is accomplished using graphics processing unit (GPU, see also p. 396, section “4. Examples”)) comprising:
accessing an input set of seismic data acquired from receivers placed at a geophysical exploration site, the input set of seismic data comprising a plurality of data traces recorded at the receivers in response to launching, at a vibration source, an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at the geophysical exploration site (p. 396-401, section “4. Examples”: field datasets retrieved using source and receivers (see Figs. 2 and 5) are used to evaluate analysis);
estimating local traveltime operators for the plurality of data traces, wherein each local traveltime operator describes a traveltime characteristic for a wavefront of the acoustic wave to travel from the vibration source, through the subterranean region of interest, and recorded as a sample point in one of the plurality of data traces (p. 389, col. 2; p. 390-391, section “2. Local traveltime operators”: local traveltime operators of nonlinear beamforming parameter traces are estimated by maximizing a semblance-based cost function).
Sun (Y. Sun, I. Silvestrov and A. Bakulin, “Enhancing 3-D Land Seismic Data Using Nonlinear Beamforming Based on the Efficiency-Improved Genetic Algorithm,” in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1192-1199, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2022.3149579, IDS reference) discloses:
“Seismic data acquired in a desert environment often have a low signal-to-noise ratio, posing a significant challenge to seismic processing, imaging, and inversion. Nonlinear beamforming is one effective method that uses local second-order mathematical operators to describe seismic events and then enhance them. However, estimating the operator coefficients from input data is a nonlinear and compute-intensive optimization problem. We propose a new method for this estimation based on a recently developed efficiency-improved genetic algorithm. We demonstrate that it delivers an excellent balance between improved data quality and computational efficiency” (Abstract: seismic data is processed using nonlinear beamforming and a genetic algorithm).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“correcting at least one local traveltime operator based on, at least in part, statistical features of traveltime characteristics described by other local traveltime operators associated with sample points that are adjacent to the sample point associated with the at least one local traveltime operator;
reconstructing a stack of wavefronts described by the at least one corrected local traveltime operator; and
performing a weighted sum of the reconstructed stack of wavefronts so that a wavefield image of the acoustic wave in the subterranean region of interest is formed and visualized with sufficient clarity to facilitate decision making at the geophysical exploration site”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 11.
Sun (Yimin Sun, Ilya Silvestrov, Andrey Bakulin, Accelerating the 2+2+1 method for estimating local traveltime operators in nonlinear beamforming using GPU graphics cards, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, Volume 19, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 389–402, https://doi.org/10.1093/jge/gxac028) discloses/teaches:
A computer system comprising one or more hardware computer processors configured to perform operations (Abstract: estimation of unknown local traveltime operators using nonlinear beamforming is accomplished using graphics processing unit (GPU, see also p. 396, section “4. Examples”)) of:
accessing an input set of seismic data acquired from receivers placed at a geophysical exploration site, the input set of seismic data comprising a plurality of data traces recorded at the receivers in response to launching, at a vibration source, an acoustic wave into a subterranean region of interest at the geophysical exploration site (p. 396-401, section “4. Examples”: field datasets retrieved using source and receivers (see Figs. 2 and 5) are used to evaluate analysis);
estimating local traveltime operators for the plurality of data traces, wherein each local traveltime operator describes a traveltime characteristic for a wavefront of the acoustic wave to travel from the vibration source, through the subterranean region of interest, and recorded as a sample point in one of the plurality of data traces (p. 389, col. 2; p. 390-391, section “2. Local traveltime operators”: local traveltime operators of nonlinear beamforming parameter traces are estimated by maximizing a semblance-based cost function).
Sun (Y. Sun, I. Silvestrov and A. Bakulin, “Enhancing 3-D Land Seismic Data Using Nonlinear Beamforming Based on the Efficiency-Improved Genetic Algorithm,” in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1192-1199, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2022.3149579, IDS reference) discloses:
“Seismic data acquired in a desert environment often have a low signal-to-noise ratio, posing a significant challenge to seismic processing, imaging, and inversion. Nonlinear beamforming is one effective method that uses local second-order mathematical operators to describe seismic events and then enhance them. However, estimating the operator coefficients from input data is a nonlinear and compute-intensive optimization problem. We propose a new method for this estimation based on a recently developed efficiency-improved genetic algorithm. We demonstrate that it delivers an excellent balance between improved data quality and computational efficiency” (Abstract: seismic data is processed using nonlinear beamforming and a genetic algorithm).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“correcting at least one local traveltime operator based on, at least in part, statistical features of traveltime characteristics described by other local traveltime operators associated with sample points that are adjacent to the sample point associated with the at least one local traveltime operator;
reconstructing a stack of wavefronts described by the at least one corrected local traveltime operator; and
performing a weighted sum of the reconstructed stack of wavefronts so that a wavefield image of the acoustic wave in the subterranean region of interest is formed and visualized with sufficient clarity to facilitate decision making at the geophysical exploration site”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AARRE; Victor, US 20110118985 A1, CONSISTENT DIP ESTIMATION FOR SEISMIC IMAGING
Reference discloses performing dip estimation for seismic imaging using global constraints.
Baina; Reda et al., US 20140149046 A1, METHOD OF PROCESSING SEISMIC DATA BY PROVIDING SURFACE OFFSET COMMON IMAGE GATHERS
Reference discloses processing seismic data by multiplying data in each trace by horizontal offset between source and receiver locations, and by applying migration processes.
Krebs; Jerome R. et al., US 8203907 B2, Updating velocity models using migration velocity scans
Reference discloses updating velocity models based on travel times comparisons.
Wu; Peter T. et al., US 20060120217 A1, Methods and systems for acoustic waveform processing
Reference discloses processing acoustic waveforms using frequency domain transformations, dispersion curve models and coherence computations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights