ClinDETAILED 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 Amendment
In the amendments filed December 23rd, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-20 remain pending in this application
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, 5, 10, 12, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhl et al. (WO 2018063156 A1, “Padhl”) in view of Mackie (US 7069150 B2, “Mackie”).
Regarding claim 1, Padhl discloses method comprising: obtaining vertical seismic profile (VSP) data and a seismic velocity model for a subterranean region of interest ([0052], processing system can perform an analysis on vsp data output by seismic receivers and generated common images using an initial velocity model); determining, using the seismic velocity model and reverse time migration, a pre-stacked migrated seismic image of the subterranean region of interest based on the VSP data, wherein the pre-stacked migrated seismic image comprises a plurality of seismic slices ([0059], migrated pre-stack data may be achieved through alternative algorithms such as reverse time migration); for each of the plurality of seismic slices in turn: determining a coherency map for each of the plurality of seismic slices ([0081], degradation of common image gathers can be determined by computing a coherency measure for migrated seismic traces.) determining a weighting map based, at least in part, on the coherency map, and determining a corrected seismic slice by applying the weighting map to each of the plurality of seismic slices; determining a post-stacked corrected migrated seismic image based on the plurality of corrected seismic slices ([0054], seismic traces that have been migrated are stacked in order to generate a migrated VSP image, with each common image gather stacked trace corresponding to a CIG location)
Padhl may not explicitly teach and determining a location of a geological feature within the subterranean region of interest based, at least in part, on the post-stacked corrected migrated seismic image.
Mackie teaches and determining a location of a geological feature within the subterranean region of interest based, at least in part, on the post-stacked corrected migrated seismic image. ([column 7, lines 38-50]procedure involves determining small data sub-volumes within a larger 3-d data volume. Sub-volumes are selected to image a specific target. Sub-volumes are imaged multiple times using pre-stack time migration with different velocity models)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the post-stacked corrected migrated seismic image is generated based on the pre-stack time migrated traces, Mackie’s target imaging reads upon the limitation as post-stack corrected seismic traces include pre-stack time migrated traces which may be used for specific target imaging);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Padhl, to include the seismic image specific target locating of Mackie with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of optimally generating lithological images of fracture patterns at specific locations [abstract].
Regarding claim 5, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie teaches the method of claim 1. Padhl further teaches wherein each of the plurality of seismic slices comprises a plurality of seismic traces organized into a source-offset domain common-image gather([0054], seismic traces that have been migrated are stacked in order to generate a migrated VSP image, with each common image gather stacked trace corresponding to a CIG location).
Regarding claim 10, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie teaches the method of claim 1. Padhl further teaches wherein the coherency map comprises a value of semblance at each position within each of the plurality of seismic slices (Implicit, [0081], coherency measure for each seismic trace is computed, and a semblance value is associated with each coherency measure).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie teaches the system of claim 12. Padhl further teaches the seismic processing system is further configured to determine the seismic velocity model based, at least in part, on the VSP data ([0051], VSP data is generated and used to measure the accuracy of an initial velocity model. Velocity model is iteratively updated in order to improve the accuracy and clarity of VSP image data).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 1 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhl in view of Mackie and Yu et al. (US 20230313664 A1, “Yu”).
Regarding claim 2, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie teaches the method of claim 1. Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie may not explicitly teach planning a wellbore path that penetrates a hydrocarbon reservoir within the subterranean region of interest based, at least in part, on the location of the geological feature.
Yu teaches planning a wellbore path that penetrates a hydrocarbon reservoir within the subterranean region of interest based, at least in part, on the location of the geological feature([0078], information provided regarding well trajectory from data gathered characterizing formations may include navigating to follow a desired route to reach a desired target or targets).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie to include the wellbore planning and navigation to a target procedure of Yu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of following a desired wellbore trajectory to ensure a target location is reached [0078].
Regarding claim 3, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie and Yu teaches the method of claim 2. Yu further teaches drilling a wellbore guided by the wellbore path([0078], information provided regarding well trajectory from data gathered characterizing formations may include navigating to follow a desired route to reach a desired target or targets).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 2 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 3 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhl in view of Mackie and Willis et al. (US 9804281 B2, “Willis”).
Regarding claim 4, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie teaches the method of claim 1. Padhl further teaches, and wherein determining the pre-stacked migrated seismic image comprises applying the reverse time migration to each of the plurality of common shot gathers ([0059] migrated pre-stack data describes a volume at each CIG location after migration. Migration algorithm may include reverse time migration).
Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie may not explicitly teach the VSP data comprises seismic traces organized into a plurality of common shot gathers
Willis teaches the VSP data comprises seismic traces organized into a plurality of common shot gathers ([column 14, lines 25-26] using reverse VSP, common shot gathers may be utilized instead of common receiver gathers).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie to include the common shot gathers of Willis with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of utilizing a reverse vsp method in which seismic energy is generated within the wellbore as opposed to the surface [column 14, lines 20-26].
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 4 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6-9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhl in view of Mackie and Yu et al. (US 20110213556 A1, “Yu 2”).
Regarding claim 6, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie teaches the method of claim 1. Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie may not explicitly teach determining the coherency map further comprises: determining a spectral seismic slice by applying a transform to each of the plurality of seismic slices; determining a filtered spectral seismic slice by applying a filter to the spectral seismic slice; and determining a filtered seismic slice by applying an inverse transform to the filtered spectral seismic slice.
Yu 2 teaches determining a spectral seismic slice by applying a transform to each of the plurality of seismic slices; determining a filtered spectral seismic slice by applying a filter to the spectral seismic slice; and determining a filtered seismic slice by applying an inverse transform to the filtered spectral seismic slice([0068]-[0069] 3D dual tree complex wavelet transform is applied to input data which computes local dip, frequency, wavenumber and phase information. Local attribute matching is obtained by an inverse transform of the 3d DCWT of the filtered z-component coefficients)([0074] matched dataset in the DCWT domain will be inverse DCWT filtered and written to output).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie to include the wavelet transform and filter of Yu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an attribute matched dataset [0078].
Regarding claim 7, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie and Yu 2 teaches the method of claim 6. Yu 2 further teaches the transform comprises a dual-tree complex wavelet transform([0068]-[0069] 3D dual tree complex wavelet transform is applied to input data which computes local dip, frequency, wavenumber and phase information. Local attribute matching is obtained by an inverse transform of the 3d DCWT of the filtered z-component coefficients).
Regarding claim 8, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie and Yu 2 teaches the method of claim 6. Yu further teaches the filter is a function of a scale factor and orientation ([0068], 3d DCWT comprises a scale vector (s) and an orientation vector (o)).
Regarding claim 9, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie and Yu 2 teaches the method of claim 6. Yu 2 further teaches the inverse transform comprises an inverse complex wavelet transform([0074] matched dataset in the DCWT domain will be inverse DCWT filtered and written to output).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 6 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 6 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhl in view of Mackie and Houbiers et al. (WO 2023027593 A1, “Houbiers”).
Regarding claim 11, Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie teaches the method of claim 1. Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie may not explicitly teach determining the weighting map comprises applying a weight function to the coherency map, and wherein the weight function assigns each value within the coherency map to a group based on a plurality of threshold values.
Houbiers teaches determining the weighting map comprises applying a weight function to the coherency map, and wherein the weight function assigns each value within the coherency map to a group based on a plurality of threshold values ([pg. 4, lines 28-30], processing step may search for maximum semblance grid points and may comprise one or more of applying weighting factors and targeted filters).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Padhl, as modified in view of Mackie to include the weighting factors and filter of Houbiers with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining an accurate location associated with the seismic signal and noise [pg. 4]
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 11 and this therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23rd, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 1-2 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Padhl fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 for the following reasons:
Padhl fails to teach determining a weighting map based on the coherency map and determining a correcting seismic slice by applying the weighting map to each of the plurality of seismic slices.
With respect to (1) while the examiner agrees that Padhl does not teach Padhl may not teach a separate and distinct weighting map that is displayed to an operator or a user, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Padhl fails to teach the limitations regarding determining a weighting map based on the coherency map and then correcting the seismic slices by applying the weighting map. Padhl at [0081]-[0083] teaches that the degradation of the common image gathers (which implicitly include seismic slices) can be measured by calculating the coherency of the migrated traces. Coherent contours may indicate whether the alignment of the CIG is accurate or not. The process of selecting points on the semblance panel, updating the velocity model, re-migrating the VSP data, and generating and displaying the updated CIGs can be repeated at all CIG locations until the updated velocity model is determined to be sufficiently accurate. It is the examiner’s interpretation that calculating a coherency measure for each CIG at each CIG location implicitly includes a positional aspect and results in a map of coherence values corresponding to the positional location of the CIGs. It is additionally the examiner’s interpretation that determining whether a CIG is aligned with sufficient accuracy, based on the measured coherency value, which informs the selection of points on the semblance panel, updating the velocity model, re-migrating the VSP data, and updating the CIGs at each CIG is equivalent to weighting the CIGs in order to determine which CIG locations need to be updated (or corrected). As the CIGs contain seismic slices, updating the CIGs through re-migration of VSP data based on the determined accuracy (or weighting) of the CIGs is therefore interpreted to be equivalent to correcting the seismic slices by applying the weighting map. Therefore the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 12 and 17, is maintained under 35 U.S.C. 103.
On pg. 2-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1, 12, and 17, that claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claim 1, above, the rejection is maintained and therefore so are the rejections of claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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:
Willis et al. (WO 2019027466 A1, “Willis 2”) which discloses a vertical seismic profiling formation velocity estimation system and method
Hu (US 20170038490 A1, “Hu”) which discloses a method and system for generating subterranean imaging data based on vertical seismic profile data and ocean bottom sensor data
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 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 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