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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-5, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to claim 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of 01/08/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 and 11 have been amended with limitation in a form not previously presented and an additional reference has been add that teaches the amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (WO2022198220A1, 2022-09-22) herein referred to as Zhao, in view of Salem (US20230243991A1, 2023-08-03), in further view of Colombo et al. (US20190195067A1, 2019-06-27) herein referred to Colombo.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao teaches a method, comprising: acquiring, using a seismic acquisition system [0012; Fig. 10], a seismic dataset [0004]; using a seismic processor [0012]: identifying, using a seismic interpretation workstation and based, at least in part, on the seismic image in depth, a drilling target [0076; 0083]; and planning, using a borehole planning system, a borehole path to the drilling target [0076; 0083].
Zhao fails to specifically teach obtaining, from the seismic dataset, an event in two-way traveltime (TWT), obtaining, from the seismic dataset, a velocity model in TWT, converting the velocity model in TWT into a velocity model in depth, producing a final velocity model in depth, wherein: the final velocity model is produced using a full waveform inversion (FWI) and the velocity model in depth; and a TWT-preserving method preserves the event in TWT at each iteration of the FWI, and forming a seismic image in depth using the final velocity model in depth and the seismic dataset. However, Zhao does teach seismic waves may be reflected and received by a plurality of seismic receivers, captured and recorded as a record of seismic data [0061]. One of ordinary skill in the art would correlate this with two-way traveltime event. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that building and modify the velocity model and ultimately using it for well planning and drilling determinations [0076], would require the velocity models to be converted from time to depth. Zhao further teaches producing a final velocity model using a full waveform inversion (FWI) and the velocity model in depth (Fig. 4-5; [0073; 0075]). Zhao further teaches a TWT preserving method preserves the event in TWT at each iteration of the FWI via RTM (Fig. 4-5; [0073; 0075]) (Examiner’s Note: It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that RTM is a TWT preserving method) and a drilling system configured to drill the borehole path to the target ) [0033, 0035, 0039]. For purposes of continued examination, a second reference is provided to teach the TWT conversion from time to depth.
Salem teaches TWT conversion from time to depth (Fig. 8; [0060]).
Both Zhao and Salem fail to teach wherein the seismic processor uses a steepest descent method as an optimization method of an objective function in the FWI.
However, in a related field, Colombo teaches wherein the seismic processor uses a steepest descent method as an optimization method of an objective function in the FWI [0018; 0075-0080] (Examiner’s Note: Colombo does not specifically mention “Full-Wave” inversion but specially describes full wave inversion as a method). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Salem and Colombo by including: the limitations above in order to revise interpretation and enhance the quality of estimating velocity parameters.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, at each iteration of FWI, the TWT-preserving method comprises re-interpolating the velocity model in depth (Zhao: Fig. 4-5; [0073, 0075]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, at each iteration of the FWI, the TWT-preserving method comprises re-interpolating the velocity model in TWT (Zhao teaches at each iteration of the FWI, the TWT preserving method comprising re-interpolation (RTM) (Fig. 4-5; [0073, 0075]), whereas Salem teach the velocity model in TWT (Fig. 8, [0060]).
Regarding Claim 7, combination further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein he TWT-preserving method is applied at each of a plurality of surface locations above the velocity model in depth (Examiner’s Note: this is inherent being that the data is sent to surface units (Zhao: [0035] which are above the velocity model in depth) ((Fig. 4-5; [0073, 0075])).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination teaches the method of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the event was determined from a time-migrated seismic dataset (Salem: [0060]; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the velocity model in TWT is obtained from a migration velocity analysis (Zhao: RTM (Fig. 4-5; [0073; 0075])
Regarding Claim 11, Zhao teaches a system, comprising: a seismic acquisition system [0012; Fig. 10], configured to acquire a seismic dataset [0004]; a seismic processor, configured to: receive the seismic dataset from the seismic acquisition system [0012]; a seismic interpretation workstation, configured to identify a drilling target based, at least in part, on the seismic image in depth [0076; 0083]; a borehole planning system, configured to plan a borehole path to the drilling target [0076; 0083].
Zhao fails to specifically teach obtain, from the seismic dataset, an event in two-way traveltime (TWT), obtain, from the seismic dataset, a velocity model in TWT, convert the velocity model in TWT into a velocity model in depth, produce a final velocity model in depth, wherein: the final velocity model is produced using a full waveform inversion (FWI) and the velocity model in depth; and a TWT-preserving method preserves the event in TWT at each iteration of the FWI, and form a seismic image in depth using the final velocity model in depth and the seismic dataset. However, Zhao does teach seismic waves may be reflected and received by a plurality of seismic receivers, captured and recorded as a record of seismic data [0061]. One of ordinary skill in the art would correlate this with two-way traveltime event. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that building and modify the velocity model and ultimately using it for well planning and drilling determinations [0076], would require the velocity models to be converted from time to depth. Zhao further teaches produce a final velocity model using a full waveform inversion (FWI) and the velocity model in depth (Fig. 4-5; [0073; 0075]). Zhao further teaches a TWT preserving method preserves the event in TWT at each iteration of the FWI via RTM (Fig. 4-5; [0073; 0075]) (Examiner’s Note: It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that RTM is a TWT preserving method) and a drilling system configured to drill the borehole path to the target ) [0033, 0035, 0039]. For purposes of continued examination, a second reference is provided to teach the TWT conversion from time to depth.
Salem teaches TWT conversion from time to depth (Fig. 8; [0060]).
Both Zhao and Salem fail to teach wherein the seismic processor uses a steepest descent method as an optimization method of an objective function in the FWI.
However, in a related field, Colombo teaches wherein the seismic processor uses a steepest descent method as an optimization method of an objective function in the FWI [0018; 0075-0080] (Examiner’s Note: Colombo does not specifically mention “Full-Wave” inversion but specially describes full wave inversion as a method). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Salem and Colombo by including: the limitations above in order to revise interpretation and enhance the quality of estimating velocity parameters.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein, at each iteration of FWI, the TWT-preserving method comprises re-interpolating the velocity model in depth (Zhao: Fig. 4-5; [0073, 0075]).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein, at each iteration of the FWI, the TWT-preserving method comprises re-interpolating the velocity model in TWT (Zhao teaches at each iteration of the FWI, the TWT preserving method comprising re-interpolation (RTM) (Fig. 4-5; [0073, 0075]), whereas Salem teach the velocity model in TWT (Fig. 8, [0060]).
Regarding Claim 17, combination further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein he TWT-preserving method is applied at each of a plurality of surface locations above the velocity model in depth (Examiner’s Note: this is inherent being that the data is sent to surface units (Zhao: [0035] which are above the velocity model in depth) ((Fig. 4-5; [0073, 0075])).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination teaches the system of claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein the event was determined from a time-migrated seismic dataset (Salem: [0060]; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein the velocity model in TWT is obtained from a migration velocity analysis (Zhao: RTM (Fig. 4-5; [0073; 0075])
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Salem and Colombo, in further view of Zheng et al. (CN107643541A, 2018-01-30), herein referred to as Zhang.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3. The combination further teaches reinterpolation of the velocity model in depth, but fails to teach the re-interpolation is a piecewise linear re-interpolation. However, in a related field, Zhang teaches piecewise linear interpolation (Claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao, Salem and Colombo to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by including: piecewise liner interpolation in order to maintain a specified characteristic of the velocity model during modification.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination above teach all of the limitations of Claim 4. The combination further teaches reinterpolation of the in TWT, but fails to teach the re-interpolation is a piecewise linear re-interpolation. However, in a related field, Zhang teaches piecewise linear interpolation (Claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified The combination above to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by including: piecewise liner interpolation in order to maintain a specified characteristic of the velocity model during modification.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination above teach all of the limitations of Claim 13. The combination further teaches reinterpolation of the velocity model in depth, but fails to teach the re-interpolation is a piecewise linear re-interpolation. However, in a related field, Zhang teaches piecewise linear interpolation (Claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified The combination above to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by including: piecewise liner interpolation in order to maintain a specified characteristic of the velocity model during modification.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination above teach all of the limitations of Claim 14. The combination further teaches reinterpolation of the in TWT, but fails to teach the re-interpolation is a piecewise linear re-interpolation. However, in a related field, Zhang teaches piecewise linear interpolation (Claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified The combination above to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by including: piecewise liner interpolation in order to maintain a specified characteristic of the velocity model during modification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights