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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/31/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are amended as being part of a base amended claim.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/31/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 of Claims 1-20 are persuasive and the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections for Claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. New 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been issued for Claims 1-20.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 3 and Claim 13 line 3 recite “second angular reflectivity”, which should be “second angular dependent reflectivity”.
Claim 6 lines 2-3 and Claim 16 line 2 recite “angle dependent reflectivity”, which should be “angular dependent reflectivities”
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 11-20 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 11 line 11 recites “the image” and Claim 11 line 19 recites “the image”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Yang (US 20170108602 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Poole teaches
receiving the seismic data d associated with the subsurface (See Poole Methodology Para[0001] “For towed streamer data, the method is typically applied to surface datum, deghosted shot gathers.”), wherein the seismic data d includes primaries and multiples m recorded by a receiver (See Poole Figure 1a)-1c), where the primary is the leftmost dot in Figure 1a), and the multiples are the dots to its right);
forward propagating the seismic data d into the subsurface to form forward propagated data dф (See Poole Methodology “Dф is the input data after extrapolation to all depths in the subsurface (x, y, z) (i.e. forward propagating the seismic data d into the subsurface to form forward propagated data dф)”. Therefore, Dф is the forward propagated data dф.);
receiving reflectivities rө in the subsurface, for a given point (See Poole Figure 1b) “scaling by the reflectivity”, where each point is the reflection points when scaling in Figure 1b).);
generating, prior to generating an image of the subsurface, an angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө by applying the forward propagated data dф to the angular dependent reflectivities rө, which acts as a scaling operator (See Poole Synthetic Example Para[0001] “Straight subtraction of the multiple prediction from the input data resulted in the data of Figure 2i.” and See Figure 3e. Therefore, generation of the images in the Figures 2i and 3e are formed after completing the wave-equation method, which includes generating a reflecting wavefield Dфөrө by applying the forward propagated data dф to the angular dependent reflectivities rө, which acts as a scaling operator, in equation 1 and Figure 1a)-Figure 1c) in Poole. See also Poole Figure 1b) (Dфr is the reflecting wavefield), and see Para[0002] of the Methodology “After scaling by the primary image r (i.e. the reflectivity acts as a scaling operator)”. Examiner notes Poole teaches an angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө as the wavefield in Poole Figures 1b) and 1c) depends on the incoming angle of the multiple.);
calculating a multiple model ФDфөrө by forward propagating the angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө to the receiver (See Poole Figure 1c.);
attenuating multiples m associated with the multiple model, from the seismic data d, by subtracting the multiple model from the seismic data d to calculate demultiple data dd (See Poole Synthetic Example Para[0001] “Straight subtraction of the multiple prediction from the input data resulted in the data of Figure 2i.”); and
generating the image of the subsurface indicative of geophysical features associated with a natural resource, carbon capture monitoring or wind turbine placement, based on the demultiple data dd (See Poole Figure 3e.).
However, Poole is silent to the language of:
angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө (See Para[0036] “the value of the perturbation directly represents the reflectivity at that angle θ (i.e. angular dependent reflectivities rө) regardless of the actual value of θ” and see Para[0033] “Within one angle range (i.e. associated with an angular range Δө), the mid angle can be chosen to be the nominal angle of the reflectivity.” See also Figure 1, where each reflectivity in step 106 is dependent on angles.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, are used like in Yang because including angular dependent reflectivities in the propagation of multiples builds a more accurate calculation of the trajectory of the multiples.
With respect to Claim 2, Poole and Yang teach the limitations of Claim 1. Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees (See Yang Para[0040] “As shown in FIG. 3A, a single shot gather is divided into five sections by the dashed lines 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305, which corresponds to the following angle ranges: 0-10; 10-20; 20-30; 30-40; and 40-50 degrees. The angle ranges do not necessarily need to overlap.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees such as that of Yang in order for precise control of the angle-dependency of the reflectivity.
With respect to Claim 3, Poole and Yang teach the limitations of Claim 1. Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the receiving the angular dependent reflectivities rө includes receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
wherein the receiving the angular dependent reflectivities rө includes receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө (See Yang Figure 1, where each reflectivity in step 106 is dependent on angles, therefore comprising receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1 and a second angular dependent reflectivity rө2. See also Para[0032] “In step 102, the shot gather is divided into several subsets. Each subset is within a relatively small range of reflection angles.” See also Yang Para[0040] “As shown in FIG. 3A, a single shot gather is divided into five sections by the dashed lines 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305, which corresponds to the following angle ranges: 0-10; 10-20; 20-30; 30-40; and 40-50 degrees. The angle ranges do not necessarily need to overlap.” Therefore, the angular dependent reflectivities in Yang are associated with corresponding angular ranges, the composite of which form the angular range Δө).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the receiving the angular dependent reflectivities rө includes receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө such as that of Yang in order for easy identification of the behavior of the multiples depending on the reflection angle.
With respect to Claim 10, Poole and Yang teach the limitations of Claim 1. Poole further teaches
wherein the subtraction is an adaptive subtraction(See Poole Introduction Para[0001] “This strategy is not without complication, however, the resulting multiple model normally being adaptively subtracted from the input data to address inaccuracies relating to source wavelet squaring and cross-talk between multiples.”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Yang (US 20170108602 A1), and further in view of Routh (US 20040199330 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, Poole and Yang teach the limitations of Claim 1. Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated.
Yang teaches
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated (See Claim 1 above and Fig. 1 Step 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated like in Yang in order for more accurate calculation of the multiple trajectories in Poole.
Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
calculated with a least square inversion method.
Nevertheless, Routh teaches
calculated with a least square inversion method (See Routh Para[0042] “The nonlinear inverse problem can be transformed to an optimization problem which is solved using a standard Gauss-Newton approach with regularization and step length search. The system of equations arising from the minimization procedure is solved using conjugate gradient with least-squares (CGLS) method which is efficient and requires minimal storage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang wherein calculating with a least square inversion method such as that of Routh is done because using a least-square inversion method efficiently calculates the angular dependent reflectivities in Yang without consuming excessive computational resources.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Yang (US 20170108602 A1), and further in view of Tan (US 20120203523 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Poole and Yang teach the limitations of Claim 1. Poole further teaches
wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated (See Claim 1 above)
to the receiver (See Claim 1 above).
Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө.
Nevertheless, Tan teaches
by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө (See Tan Para[0065] “propagating source wavefield, propagating receiver wavefield, and/or simultaneous propagating of source wavefield and receiver wavefield”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө like Tan in order for more efficient comparison analysis against the method of sequential propagation of said wavefields.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Yang (US 20170108602 A1), and further in view of Qin (US 20160282490 A1).
With respect to Claim 6, Poole and Yang teach the limitations of Claim 1. Poole further teaches
wherein the generating an angle dependent reflecting wavefield (See Claim 1 above).
Poole is silent to the language of
involves converting the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulating a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.
Yang teaches
the angle dependent reflectivity (See Claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angle dependent reflectivity is used like in Yang in order for more accurate calculation of the multiple trajectories in Poole.
Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
involves converting the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulating a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
involves converting the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulating a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө (See Qin Para[0036] “Method 400 further includes generating modeled data corresponding to the detected data using a velocity model of the formation and full-wave equation (i.e. involving the reflectivity) at 420, back-propagating residuals representing differences between the modeled data and the detected data at 430. Method 400 further includes using a local optimization based on a deconvolution formula employing a backward propagating wavefield and a forward propagating wavefield at 440. Back-propagating the differences allows grouping them into gathers in in a common shot domain, a common receiver domain, a common surface offset domain, a common subsurface offset domain (i.e. since a plurality of gathers are in a common subsurface offset domain, Qin accumulates a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.), a common angle domain or a common plane wave domain.” See also Para[0010] “It is desirable to improve FWI methods for obtaining high-resolution velocity models from reflected waves in a more reliable and faster manner than conventional FWI.” Therefore, Qin uses the FWI, which comprises the full-wave equation (See Fig. 4) for reflected waves which reflect from reflectivities. In addition, the reflectivity is also in the subsurface offset domain as the gathers are reflected from them.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang wherein involving converting the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulating a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө is done like in Qin because converting the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain and accumulating reflections from two subsurface offsets builds a controlled solution of the propagator equation for the seismic data when considering angular dependent reflectivities in Yang.
With respect to Claim 7, Poole, Yang, and Qin teach the limitations of Claim 6. Poole further teaches
the forward propagated data (See Claim 1 above).
Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection (See Para[0045] “The data (serving as detected data and, thus, the FWI start point) are generated by finite differences for a marine-towed streamer acquisition with offsets ranging from 0 to 3 km.” (i.e. wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h). See also Para[0010] “It is desirable to improve FWI methods for obtaining high-resolution velocity models from reflected waves in a more reliable and faster manner than conventional FWI.” Therefore, Qin uses the FWI, which comprises the full-wave equation for reflected waves, which reflect from reflectivities, for the data gathered. Therefore, the data gathered by the marine-towed streamer corresponds to reflected data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection such as that of Qin because offsetting the data in space corresponds to the efficient calculation of the multiple model in Poole while considering the angle-dependence of the reflectivities in Yang.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") and Yang (US 20170108602 A1), and further in view of Ozbek (US 20110060528 A1).
With respect to Claim 8, Poole and Yang teach the limitations of Claim 1. Poole further teaches
the forward propagated data (See Claim 1 above).
Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
wherein the data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forward propagated wavefield.
Nevertheless, Ozbek teaches
wherein the data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forward propagated wavefield (See Ozbek Para[0007] “In seismic data processing, a common processing step is velocity (or dip) filtering, where wave field components faster than a given apparent velocity c are past, and the rest are rejected.” See also Ozbek Para[0035] “The unwanted transients are observed at the beginning of the record when IIR filters (i.e. dip filters) are applied from in the forward (front-to-back) direction (i.e. the front-to-back direction comprises the forward direction)” and Para[0045] “the 1D IIR filter (i.e. dip filter) having the coefficient determined in step S4 is applied in a forward direction to the data (i.e. wherein the data is dip filtered to create a forward propagated wavefield)” and Para[0048] of Ozbek “the back end of the data (high offsets) may be padded by adding additional traces. These traces may be obtained by extrapolating the data, for example by reflection (i.e. establishing a first angular range) with respect to the last sample. This prevents loss of signal due to the front to back filter outputting the signal beyond the original length of the input.” Therefore, the dip filtering creates a first angular range forward propagated wavefield.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang wherein the data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forward propagated wavefield such as that of Ozbek because dip filtering is a method to control and modify the seismic data and compare it with other data processing methods.
With respect to Claim 9, Poole, Yang, and Ozbek teach the limitations of Claim 8. Poole further teaches
forward propagated wavefield (See Claim 1 above)
Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the first angular range wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
wherein the first angular range wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range (See Abstract “obtaining a seismic dataset that is separated into subsets according to predetermined subsurface reflection angle ranges (i.e. one of which is the same first angular range); performing, with a computer, an acoustic full wavefield inversion process on each of the subsets” and See Abstract “transforming, using a computer, the acoustic impedances for each of the subsets into reflectivity sections”. The full wavefield inversion process involves inverting the wavefield that is reflected from a first reflectivity, which is one of the reflectivity sections which correspond to the same subsurface angular range in Yang.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the first angular range wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range such as that of Yang because having the wavefield being angle dependent while reflecting from an angle-dependent reflectivity corresponds to more effective characterization of multiples, leading to more accurate calculation of multiple attenuation in Poole.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Yang (US 20170108602 A1) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1).
With respect to Claim 11, Poole teaches
receive the seismic data d associated with the subsurface, (See Poole Methodology Para[0001] “For towed streamer data, the method is typically applied to surface datum, deghosted shot gathers.”), wherein the seismic data d includes primaries and multiples m recorded by a receiver (See Poole Figure 1a)-1c), where the primary is the leftmost dot in Figure 1a), and the multiples are the dots to its right); and
forward propagate the seismic data d into the subsurface to form forward propagated data dФ (See Poole Methodology “Dф is the input data after extrapolation to all depths in the subsurface (x, y, z) (i.e. forward propagating the seismic data d into the subsurface to form forward propagated data dф)”. Therefore, Dф is the forward propagated data dф.)
receive reflectivities rө in the subsurface, for a given point (See Poole Figure 1b) “scaling by the reflectivity”, where each point is the reflection point when scaling in Figure 1 b).);
generate, prior to generating the image of the subsurface, an angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө by applying the forward propagated data dФ to the angular dependent reflectivities rө,, which acts as a scaling operator (See Poole Synthetic Example Para[0001] “Straight subtraction of the multiple prediction from the input data resulted in the data of Figure 2i.” and See Figure 3e. Therefore, generation of the images in the Figures 2i and 3e are formed after completing the wave-equation method, which includes generating a reflecting wavefield Dфөrө by applying the forward propagated data dФ to the angular dependent reflectivities rө, which acts as a scaling operator, in equation 1 and Figure 1a)-Figure 1c) in Poole. See also Poole Figure 1b) (Dфr is the reflecting wavefield), and see Para[0002] of the Methodology “After scaling by the primary image r (i.e. the reflectivity acts as a scaling operator)”. Examiner notes Poole teaches an angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө as the wavefield in Poole Figures 1b) and 1c) depends on the incoming angle of the multiple.);
calculate a multiple model ФDфөrө by forward propagating the angle dependent reflecting wavefield Dфөrө to the receiver (See Poole Figure 1c.);
attenuate multiples m associated with the multiple model, from the seismic data d, by subtracting the multiple model from the seismic data d to calculate demultiple data dd (See Poole Synthetic Example Para[0001] “Straight subtraction of the multiple prediction from the input data resulted in the data of Figure 2i.”); and
generate the image of the subsurface indicative of geophysical features associated with a natural resource, carbon capture monitoring or wind turbine placement, based on the demultiple data dd (See Poole Figure 3e.).
However, Poole is silent to the language of:
an interface configured to
a processor connected to the interface and configured to,
angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө (See Para[0036] “the value of the perturbation directly represents the reflectivity at that angle θ (i.e. angular dependent reflectivities rө) regardless of the actual value of θ” and see Para[0033] “Within one angle range (i.e. associated with an angular range Δө), the mid angle can be chosen to be the nominal angle of the reflectivity.” See also Figure 1, where each reflectivity in step 106 is dependent on angles.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein angular dependent reflectivities rө, associated with an angular range Δө, are used like in Yang because including angular dependent reflectivities in the propagation of multiples builds a more accurate calculation of the trajectory of the multiples.
However, Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
an interface configured to
a processor connected to the interface and configured to
Nevertheless, Strobbia teaches
an interface configured to (See Para[0046] “The processor 550 may be coupled to a communication interface 560 for purposes of receiving seismic data acquired in a seismic survey.”)
a processor connected to the interface and configured to (See Para[0042] “The processor 550 may be coupled to a communication interface 560 for purposes of receiving seismic data acquired in a seismic survey.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang with an interface and a processor such as that of Strobbia for efficient compartmentalized analysis of the multiple attenuation.
With respect to Claim 12, Poole, Yang, and Strobbia teach the limitations of Claim 11. Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees (See Yang Para[0040] “As shown in FIG. 3A, a single shot gather is divided into five sections by the dashed lines 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305, which corresponds to the following angle ranges: 0-10; 10-20; 20-30; 30-40; and 40-50 degrees. The angle ranges do not necessarily need to overlap.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the associated angular range Δө is between - 50 and +50 degrees such as that of Yang in order for precise control of the angle-dependency of the reflectivity.
With respect to Claim 13, Poole, Yang, and Strobbia teach the limitations of Claim 11. Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
receive a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө (See Yang Figure 1, where each reflectivity in step 106 is dependent on angles, therefore comprising receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1 and a second angular reflectivity rө2. See also Para[0032] “In step 102, the shot gather is divided into several subsets. Each subset is within a relatively small range of reflection angles.” See also Yang Para[0040] “As shown in FIG. 3A, a single shot gather is divided into five sections by the dashed lines 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305, which corresponds to the following angle ranges: 0-10; 10-20; 20-30; 30-40; and 40-50 degrees. The angle ranges do not necessarily need to overlap.” Therefore, the angular dependent reflectivities in Yang are associated with corresponding angular ranges, the composite of which form the angular range Δө).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein receiving a first angular dependent reflectivity rө1, associated with a first angular range, and a second angular reflectivity rө2, associated with a second angular range, wherein the first angular range together with the second angular range form the angular range Δө is done like in Yang in order for easy identification of the behavior of the multiples depending on the reflection angle.
Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
wherein the processor is further configured to.
Strobbia teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to (See Para[0046] “The processor 550 may be coupled to a communication interface 560 for purposes of receiving seismic data acquired in a seismic survey.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang using the processor such as that of Strobbia for efficient compartmentalized analysis of the multiple attenuation, since the processor in Strobbia is configured for seismic data.
With respect to Claim 20, Poole, Yang, and Strobbia teach the limitations of Claim 11. Poole further teaches
wherein the subtraction is an adaptive subtraction (See Poole Introduction Para[0001] “This strategy is not without complication, however, the resulting multiple model normally being adaptively subtracted from the input data to address inaccuracies relating to source wavelet squaring and cross-talk between multiples.”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Yang (US 20170108602 A1) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Routh (US 20040199330 A1).
With respect to Claim 14, Poole, Yang, and Strobbia teach the limitations of Claim 11. Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated.
Yang teaches
wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated (See Claim 11 above and Fig. 1 Step 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angular dependent reflectivities are calculated like in Yang in order for more accurate calculation of the multiple trajectories in Poole.
Poole, Yang, and Strobbia are silent to the language of
calculated with a least square inversion method.
Nevertheless, Routh teaches
calculated with a least square inversion method (See Routh Para[0042] “The nonlinear inverse problem can be transformed to an optimization problem which is solved using a standard Gauss-Newton approach with regularization and step length search. The system of equations arising from the minimization procedure is solved using conjugate gradient with least-squares (CGLS) method which is efficient and requires minimal storage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole, Yang, and Strobbia wherein calculating with a least square inversion method such as that of Routh is done because using a least-square inversion method efficiently calculates the angular dependent reflectivities in Yang without consuming excessive computational resources.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Yang (US 20170108602 A1) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Tan (US 20120203523 A1).
With respect to Claim 15, Poole, Yang, and Strobbia teach the limitations of Claim 11. Poole further teaches
wherein the multiple model ФDфөrө is calculated (See Claim 11 above)
to the receiver (See Claim 11 above).
Poole, Yang, and Strobbia are silent to the language of
by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө.
Nevertheless, Tan teaches
by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө (See Tan Para[0065] “propagating source wavefield, propagating receiver wavefield, and/or simultaneous propagating of source wavefield and receiver wavefield”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole, Yang, and Strobbia by simultaneously forward propagating plural angle dependent reflecting wavefields Dфөrө like Tan in order for more efficient comparison analysis against the method of sequential propagation of said wavefields.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Yang (US 20170108602 A1) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Qin (US 20160282490 A1).
With respect to Claim 16, Poole, Yang, and Strobbia teach the limitations of Claim 11. Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the processor is further configured to convert the angle dependent reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.
Yang teaches
the angle dependent reflectivity (See Claim 11 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the angle dependent reflectivity is used like in Yang in order for more accurate calculation of the multiple trajectories in Poole.
Poole and Yang are silent to the language of
wherein the processor is further configured to convert the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.
Strobbia teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to (See Para[0046] “The processor 550 may be coupled to a communication interface 560 for purposes of receiving seismic data acquired in a seismic survey.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole and Yang using the processor such as that of Strobbia for efficient compartmentalized analysis of the multiple attenuation, since the processor in Strobbia is configured for seismic data.
Poole, Yang, and Strobbia are silent to the language of
convert the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
convert the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө.(See Qin Para[0036] “Method 400 further includes generating modeled data corresponding to the detected data using a velocity model of the formation and full-wave equation (i.e. involving the reflectivity) at 420, back-propagating residuals representing differences between the modeled data and the detected data at 430. Method 400 further includes using a local optimization based on a deconvolution formula employing a backward propagating wavefield and a forward propagating wavefield at 440. Back-propagating the differences allows grouping them into gathers in in a common shot domain, a common receiver domain, a common surface offset domain, a common subsurface offset domain (i.e. since a plurality of gathers are in a common subsurface offset domain, Qin accumulates a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө), a common angle domain or a common plane wave domain.” See also Para[0010] “It is desirable to improve FWI methods for obtaining high-resolution velocity models from reflected waves in a more reliable and faster manner than conventional FWI.” Therefore, Qin uses the FWI, which comprises the full-wave equation (See Fig. 4) for reflected waves which reflect from reflectivities. In addition, the reflectivity is also in the subsurface offset domain as the gathers are reflected from them.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole, Yang, and Strobbia wherein converting the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain Srө and accumulate a reflection from a first subsurface offset with a reflection from a second subsurface offset DøsSrө is done like in Qin because converting the reflectivity to a subsurface offset domain and accumulating reflections from two subsurface offsets corresponds to a controlled solution of the propagator equation for the seismic data when considering angular dependent reflectivities in Yang.
With respect to Claim 17, Poole, Yang, Strobbia, and Qin teach the limitations of Claim 16. Poole further teaches
the forward propagated data (See Claim 11 above).
Poole, Yang, and Strobbia are silent to the language of
wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection.
Nevertheless, Qin teaches
wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection (See Para[0045] “The data (serving as detected data and, thus, the FWI start point) are generated by finite differences for a marine-towed streamer acquisition with offsets ranging from 0 to 3 km.” (i.e. wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h). See also Para[0010] “It is desirable to improve FWI methods for obtaining high-resolution velocity models from reflected waves in a more reliable and faster manner than conventional FWI.” Therefore, Qin uses the FWI, which comprises the full-wave equation for reflected waves, which reflect from reflectivities, for the data gathered. Therefore, the data gathered by the marine-towed streamer corresponds to reflected data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole, Yang, and Strobbia wherein the data is offset in space, at the given point, with a subsurface offset h to generate a reflection such as that of Qin because offsetting the data in space corresponds to the efficient calculation of the multiple model in Poole while considering the angle-dependence of the reflectivities in Yang.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole ("Shallow Water Surface Related Multiple Attenuation Using Multi-Sailine 3D Deconvolution Imaging") in view of Yang (US 20170108602 A1) and Strobbia (US 20100128563 A1), and further in view of Ozbek (US 20110060528 A1).
With respect to Claim 18, Poole, Yang, and Strobbia teach the limitations of Claim 11. Poole further teaches
the forward propagated data (See Claim 11 above).
Poole, Yang, and Strobbia are silent to the language of
wherein the data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forward propagated wavefield.
Nevertheless, Ozbek teaches
wherein the data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forward propagated wavefield (See Ozbek Para[0007] “In seismic data processing, a common processing step is velocity (or dip) filtering, where wave field components faster than a given apparent velocity c are past, and the rest are rejected.” See also Ozbek Para[0035] “The unwanted transients are observed at the beginning of the record when IIR filters (i.e. dip filters) are applied from in the forward (front-to-back) direction (i.e. the front-to-back direction comprises the forward direction)” and Para[0045] “the 1D IIR filter (i.e. dip filter) having the coefficient determined in step S4 is applied in a forward direction to the data (i.e. wherein the data is dip filtered to create a forward propagated wavefield)” and Para[0048] of Ozbek “the back end of the data (high offsets) may be padded by adding additional traces. These traces may be obtained by extrapolating the data, for example by reflection (i.e. establishing a first angular range) with respect to the last sample. This prevents loss of signal due to the front to back filter outputting the signal beyond the original length of the input.” Therefore, the dip filtering creates a first angular range forward propagated wavefield.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole, Yang, and Strobbia wherein the data is dip filtered to a first angular range to create a first angular range forward propagated wavefield such as that of Ozbek because dip filtering is a method to control and modify the seismic data and compare it with other data processing methods.
With respect to Claim 19, Poole, Yang, Strobbia, and Ozbek teach the limitations of Claim 18. Poole further teaches
forward propagated wavefield (See Poole Methodology “Dф is the input data after extrapolation to all depths in the subsurface (x, y, z) (i.e. forward propagating the seismic data d into the subsurface to form forward propagated data dф)”. Therefore, Dф is the forward propagated data dф, which is the forward propagated wavefield as it is a wavefield inserted into the wave equation of equation 1.)
Poole is silent to the language of
wherein the first angular range wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches
wherein the first angular range wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range (See Abstract “obtaining a seismic dataset that is separated into subsets according to predetermined subsurface reflection angle ranges (i.e. one of which is the same first angular range); performing, with a computer, an acoustic full wavefield inversion process on each of the subsets” and See Abstract “transforming, using a computer, the acoustic impedances for each of the subsets into reflectivity sections”. The full wavefield inversion process involves inverting the wavefield that is reflected from a first reflectivity, which is one of the reflectivity sections which correspond to the same subsurface angular range in Yang.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Poole wherein the first angular range wavefield is reflected from a first reflectivity corresponding to the same first angular range such as that of Yang because having the wavefield being angle dependent while reflecting from an angle-dependent reflectivity corresponds to more effective characterization of multiples, leading to more accurate calculation of multiple attenuation in Poole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
